I don’t base my opinion of an airport on how it looks, but how it functions in moving people efficiently and safely. JFK is just way too small for the amount of air traffic it gets. It was designed back in a time when they handled a couple of 707s an hour at best. The designers never planned ahead for the modern era of air travel. Meanwhile CDG is just horribly inefficient in moving people from the terminal onto their planes and downright dangerous at times because of the idiots they hire as workers. The airport itself could probably work well for almost any other country, but doesn’t work well because it is run by the french. I also dislike Milan airport because it doesn’t have proper restroom facilities. The restrooms handle 3 people at a time (when they are working), but serve over half a dozen gates. There will be more lavs on your departing aircraft than in the terminal.
Nor do I and I'm sure you realize my joking remark about CDG's decor was not the most serious criticism I'd make. However, when they built CDG it is clear their priority was decor (however bordello like) over function. It is a horrible place to have to fly through compared with most if not all of the other major airports in Europe.
But to get back to the point of the thread, I would not compare JFK to even CDG favorably. The fact that JFK is part of the New York infrastructure and New York (sub) culture creates a whole host of other problems even CDG doesn't have. I have to fly through the New York area fairly regularly and, in part because I live closest to a Continental Airlines hub, I will always choose Newark Liberty and avoid JFK like the plague.
I think the last time I had to fly through Milan was 20 plus years ago. But thanks for the tip about the facilities. I'll make sure to take care of things before I land, or before leaving the hotel headed out.