> it's not that building something in, say, Java from scratch will take an order of magnitude more time and effort than building it on Node.js, despite all the hype, especially if you're a Java shop.
I think we're picturing different things here. You're picturing having software engineers make the prototype, and then having the same engineers do the final implementation. Meanwhile, I'm picturing two different teams, with different competencies—one who knows a prototyping toolchain backward and forward and is extremely productive in it, and the other who knows a solidly-architected platform just as well.
The classical pipeline in the animation industry is to have two separate "teams" of artists. One team does concept illustration and storyboarding, and the other does keyframe animation and in-betweening. The first of the two teams is essentially a team of prototypers. Their output is a product which stands on its own for internal evaluation purposes—but which isn't commercially viable "in production." (Nobody really wants to watch 1FPS sketches.) So, after the storyboarding is complete, the whole product is redone by the actual animators into the more familiar product of 24FPS tweened vector-lines or CGI model-joint movements.
The more familiar case of this for web development is where the "prototype" is a PSD file. Professional capital-D Designers are usually Photoshop experts—they're very productive in it, and can mock up something that can be evaluated for being "what the customer wants" quickly, with rapid iteration if it's not right. Once they've got the customer's sign-off, their output product—their prototype—can be tossed over to development staff to "make it work." (There are also an increasing number of interaction-design prototyping apps targeting the same set of designers, under the theory that they'll be able to become productive in quickly iterating the "feeling" of an app with a customer in the way they're already doing with the "look" of the app. I haven't met a designer that uses one of these professionally, but I think that's mostly because there aren't any of these yet well-known enough to be taught in art schools.)
But when it comes to workflow and use-case design, we don't really see the equivalent pipeline. Looking through the lens of separated "prototyper" and "engineer" roles, there are clearly tons of software-development tools that were intended to be used purely by "prototypers": Rails' view scaffolding, for example. But since this role isn't separate, these things get used by engineers, and sneered at, since, as you said, it's no more effort—when you're already an engineer—to just engineer the thing right from the beginning.
Interestingly, all of the true examples of workflow prototyping I can think of come from the specific domain of game development—but even there, nobody seems to realize that prototyping is the goal of these tools, and tries to misuse them as "production" tools. RPG Maker, seen as a tool for making a commercial RPG, is total crap. RPG Maker, seen as a tool for prototyping an RPG, is an excellent tool. Its output is effectively a sketch, a cartoon in the classical sense:
> The concept [of a cartoon] originated in the Middle Ages and first described a preparatory drawing for a piece of art, such as a painting, fresco, tapestry, or stained glass window.
A cartoon is a prototype used to communicate intent. Yes, you (as the producer of the finished piece) can cartoon together with a client to iterate on a proposal. But much more interestingly, a client can learn to cartoon on their own—and then, in place of a long design document, they can submit their cartoon to you. An RPG Maker game project is the best possible thing I could hope to receive as a design proposal from a client asking for me to make an RPG. It forces all the same decisions to be made that making the actual commercial game does—and thus embeds the answers to those decisions in the product—but it doesn't require the same skillset to create that the commercial game does, so the client can do it themselves. The prototyping tool, here, is doing the "iterating on a design together" job of the designer for them.
We do have one common prototyping tool in the software world—Excel. A complex Excel spreadsheet is a cartoon of a business process, that nearly anyone can make. We as engineers might hate them, because people generally have no sense of project organization when making them—but every project to convert an Excel "app" will take far less time than one that involves collecting the business requirements yourself. The decisions have already been made, and codified, into the spreadsheet. You don't have to sit there forcing the client to make them. The process of cartooning has forced them to do it themselves.
---
To summarize: software prototyping tools aren't for engineers—if you have an engineer's mindset, you'll prototype at the speed of sound engineering practice, so prototype tools won't be any help to you; and you'll be more familiar with the production-quality tools anyway, so you'll be more productive in those than with the prototyping toolset.
But software prototyping tools definitely have uses: they can help designers to iterate on a "functional mock-up" to capture a client's intent; or they can even help clients to create those same mock-ups on their own. This is why "prototypeware" makes sense as software—but also why it should be self-limiting from being used in production. The prototype app wasn't created by someone with an engineering mindset—so there's no way it could end up well-engineered. Its purpose is to serve as a cartoon, a communication to an engineer; not to function in production on its own.
(Mind you, prototypeware could be made to function as an MVP in closed-alpha test scenarios, in the same way that the MVPs of many startups are actually backed by manual human action in their early stages. The point there is to test the correctness of the codified business process, rather than to support a production workload.)