I'm not some Google/Microsoft/whatever engineer who's been working on highly scalable, highly available systems. I've mostly worked in consulting on small projects. I have never not had problems with the defaults on any of those sorts of libraries. I've almost always had to roll my own graph manipulation and heavily customize any serialization system I've used. And when I do so, because I've gotten good at doing it (in particular, I don't think of the graph stuff as being hard at all), it makes tons of other stuff inside around the project a lot easier.

I feel like people bend themselves out of shape trying to avoid these so-called "complex" or "esoteric" "only theoretical Computer Science" topics. You don't need a general purpose tree or graph manipulation library. Trying to make one ends up creating something far more complex than necessary and all you succeed in doing is making the calling code maybe two lines shorter but also not easily portable between projects, and also at a huge maintenance cost. It would be like trying to make your own, bespoke "Collection handling class" because you think trying to keep track of arrays and lists and dictionaries and sets and queues and stacks is too "complex, esoteric." No, you end up creating something complex and esoteric in the attempt to try to handle the erroneously identified "complexity."

In general, I don't think you can argue definitively on the uselessness of a piece of knowledge from a standpoint of ignorance of that knowledge.