The reasons for this inefficiency are many: my 3000 line Angular program somehow drags in 300 MB of node_modules and 30 MB of bower_components; Grunt is supposedly less efficient than Gulp because it has to make a lot of disk copies; my template is probably too fancy, etc. But this is a 50x discrepancy. There must be a lot of negative multipliers combining here to lead to inefficiency like this. And that is what the software engineers of the world don't like about Node: the whiff of amateur that pervades the system.
Maven is not a good program. It's verbose (input and output), it inflicts XML on humans, its documentation is awful. But it has a much more appropriate level of flexibility. It has made the NRAO's Java code a lot more maintainable. Anybody can check anything out and run
mvn package to build it,
mvn deploy to deploy it (well, usually). And this is what makes Maven a great program, even though it is also an awful program. It's prescriptive and pervasive. It wouldn't be great if it were optional.
I don't think Node or any other technology can be inherently bad. But, technologies can be immature, or they can foster a community that encourages amateurish (or bad, or insecure) behavior. Eventually, maybe someone falls in love with it and leads a big crusade to clean things up. Or maybe it becomes so popular that heartless buck-chasing programmers hammer on it until the old ways become unpleasant and new ways take root (this is what happened to PHP). But it feels like we're dealing with Node.js in its awkward teenage years. A great Cambrian explosion of ideas, mostly bad ideas, playing out on npm. A lot of libraries with an air of perfunctoriness. "It connects, but there's no error handling." This kind of thing is upsetting to engineers, and we are mean.