Is there evidence to suggest the Thoughtworks claim that JSF is a broken abstraction?

Question

On a Thoughtworks technology rocket - they put Java Server Faces on hold - :

We continue to see teams encountering problems using JSF - JavaServer Faces - and recommend that you avoid this technology. Teams seem to choose JSF because it is a J2EE standard, not evaluating whether the programming model suits them. We think JSF is wrong because it tries to abstract HTML, CSS, and HTTP, exactly the opposite of what modern web frameworks do. JSF, like ASP.NET web forms, tries to create statefulness on top of the HTTP protocol without obsolescence and ultimately causes a number of problems related to the state of the shared server. We know about the improvements in JSF 2.0, but we believe that the model is fundamentally broken. We recommend teams use simple frameworks and embrace and understand web technologies including HTTP, HTML and CSS.

As I understand it, they basically say that you can fall into the trap if you complete the protocol without taking into account the state, such as http, with a state abstraction. those. that the team may run into problems wrapping their heads around it.

My question is: Is there evidence to suggest the Thoughtworks claim that JSF is a broken abstraction?