I had a S&W J-frame bind up in what would have been a catastrophic malfunction had it not happened while I was dry-firing. I was cycling about 120 miles a week and it was in a pocket holster in my riding jersey back pocket. My sweat turned the lithium grease inside the frame to paste.
Nothing like that ever happened to my Glock 26, and its a heck of a lot easier to clean the guts of a Glock than the guts of a J-frame.
I have nothing against auto pistols for self-defense if they're reliable and I own and rely on several makes and types. In fact, in thirty years of doing bi-annual qualification drills, using revolvers for the first fifteen years or so before my agency transitioned to autos, the only "malfunction" I ever experienced on the line was with a revolver, a Model 13 Smith & Wesson to be specific. As the shooting went on, the cylinder became harder and harder to turn and finally refused to budge. Our range officer knew exactly what to look for and, sure enough, a couple of flakes of powder had gotten behind the extractor star, eventually tying the gun up.
Once the change was made to autos, I was issued a Third Generation Smith & Wesson pistol, chambered in 9mm Luger. This gun never failed, even after firing hundreds of cheap agency reloads. However, even after all that is said, if you were to ask me which type of handgun, revolver or semi-auto, I would say might give a shooter less problems over time in terms of reliability, it would be the revolver. No worries with ammunition sensitivity, no springs to weaken, no magazine to fail and no extractor that might need tweaking/tuning.
Just my opinion based on my experience. I would never disagree with others who might opt for the auto based on their experiences. YMMV is an apt caveat.