Primes vs Zooms

Rightly or wrongly I learnt years back that Zooms had so many compromises over primes that primes were the only way to go.
Today I see that the emphasis is more on zooms than primes.

When reading reviews of zooms should one still anticipate that the reviews are such that they over-look the inherent defficiencies of zooms in comparson to primes that one should anticipate this ahead of time?

In other words, assuming that one has a zoom of 24 to 85 mm @ f2.8. How would this compare to primes of 28, 50 and 85 @ f2.8 - bearing in mind that one may have to take a couple of steps to 'accommodate' the 'in betwen' focal lengths?

I would think that the primes would out-perform the zoom - particularly at the two extremes of the focal length - not only in respect of 'image quality" (whatever one perceives this to be) but also in terms of price and possibly also cost and 'carry-weight'.

In other words are zooms just promoted because they are more convenient?

Or are zooms so good now they can comfortably replace the primes over their focal length?

I see no comparison of zooms vs. primes on the 'net to make any valid comparisons.

Your views?