I have long argued against the conventional wisdom and made a thread addressing some of this with regard to blade pact in particular.
I do not like eldritch blast spamming myself. I prefer the invocations attached to eldritch blast that move opponents and control the field. It works perfectly, fine, just not my thing. I do not like disadvantage up close and like magic swords!
I almost always take moderately armored (and now look forward to hexblade). I go for heavy weapons and often consider great weapon master (have had three blade pacts characters) all but one took this path.
The eldritch blast really does not become overwhelming until you get three blasts. Even then, you are getting ready to see lifedrinker. The math is really not there to back up EB's supposed overwhelming superiority. It is better at range but in our games, a group of four cannot make sure all characters are melee free at a distance. Disadvantage makes EB less superior even before comparable damage from melee weapons comes into play.
Questions about hit points come up for blade pact as well. However, if you add in the occasional spell some difference is mitigated. What really boggles my mind is the concern about d8 for a more melee oriented warlock. Its one point a level different that a fighter. If it is con we are thinking about, true, you might have a lower con in lieu of charisma and strength if you go with heavy weapons. However, again are we talking about maybe two points a level also considering hit die? Is 20 hit points THAT different at 10th level?
I will get a lot of disagreement, and that is fine! I feel perfectly OK with blade pact warlocks.
But in the end, their flavor makes them worth it. If I am play a "suboptimal" character that I really like, and I survive, did I lose ANYTHING? I admit I like a challenge and this may have swayed my opinion.