"Worse is better" is an oxymoron. You can also read it as "better is worse". In "worse is better", the "worse" isn't really worse in practical settings (considering all tradeoffs, giving appropriate weights to design goals, etc.).
Nobody argues that there can't be problems. What all critics miss is to show how to avoid these problems.
What can you do about jobs that make the system unresponsive? Not a problem for cron to solve.
If someone writes a crontab (instead of rename()ing another version over it), that's not cron's fault. Sqlite databases can be just as easily corrupted or lose integrity. Now which format would you rather repair?
Missing a cron job can not be totally avoided, and it isn't the end of the world. What if your machine goes down or cron crashes? The answer is that the jobs themselves have to be provided with some resilience against that situation.
This isn't a case of "worse is better" since there weren't proposed solutions to the "problems" at all, however unrealistic.