Pretty much my sentiments as well. Glocks are made for folks who are not really shooters, but have a need for a gun. The more one shoots, and the better one gets at it, the less use one has for a Glock. Great for police departments and the like who do not provide enough practice time and ammo for their officers to get all that proficient. Great for city councils and the like who know nothing about guns, but want their police departments to only be armed with "safe" (and cheap) guns.
My biggest complaint is the trigger. I cannot think of a worse trigger on any firearm I've ever handled. It works, it makes the gun go "bang", and for a non-shooter who has never been exposed (or exposed very little) to a fine revolver or 1911 trigger, I'm sure it seems just fine. And yes, for exceedingly close range "combat" or defensive shooting, it is. It's entirely functional. But for those of us who shoot recreationally, and have some expectations of accuracy at longer ranges (like staying on a soup can offhand at 50 yards), forget it. Nothing but frustration with that trigger.
And then there is the plastic. I just can't see a Glock as an "heirloom quality" firearm. I plan on passing my firearms on to my two boys, and they will pass them on to my grandchildren, and hopefully so on and so forth. They are wood and steel, mostly blued steel. As much of an expression of the art of the firearm as they are practical tools. Glocks, while extremely functional, will never be accused of that.
And, finally, yes - I am a firearms traditionalist and quite obviously curmudgeon. And as long as I have your attention - get off my lawn...
