Question: I find it easier to use SSHFS to mount a remote file system on my local computer instead of plainly SSH'ing into the remote computer. This saves me from using all the complicated `scp` commmands for copy/paste. But on the internet, I find very few people talking about SSHFS. If SSHFS is more easier, then why isn't it more popular? Are there any disadvantages to it?

Answer: 
I wondered the same. I've spent a lot of time trying and tuning different access methods to remote webspace. I've tried NFS (frequent lockups, poor performance), Samba (very good, especially with SMB 2.0), OpenAFS (despite local caching, it wasn't really quick).

Then a colleage mentioned SSHFS. I've mapped the webspace and have never looked back. My large web project is indexed by the IDE twice as fast as even the most highly tuned Samba mount I could manage.

In short, SSHFS is an underdog.
Compression overhead, poorer low latency toleration and memory hungry and if connection cuts every now and then sshfs can get cranky.Typical tradeoff when using a secure (sshfs) versus an insecure (nfs) protocol.