Both first person and third person narratives have been popular for many centuries. Depends on the kind of story being told. A big, sprawling story with a lot of different characters and locations (like, say, War and Peace or The Lord of the Rings) really need the freedom of third person.

A more personal story like Huckleberry Finn benefits from first person; it's like Huck is speaking directly to us, sharing not only his adventures but his introspection and growth, achieving one of literature's great moral epiphanies. (Its predecessor, Tom Sawyer, is third person; that works well because it's more of an examination of boyhood from the distance of an adult perspective, and also the protagonist isn't as self-aware as Huck.)

One of my odder short story rejections came from an editor who mistakenly thought a first person narrative had to include within it an explanation of how the narrator came to write the story down, as if it were a nonfiction account in the real world. I tried to explain that first person narration is a long, long-established convention that doesn't require any such explanation; but she said she'd reject any first person story in which it wasn't logically possible for the narrator to have physically written the story down. I asked if she would have rejected Harlan Ellison's famous I Have No Mouth, And I Must Scream on that basis; I think she said she would've made an exception.

Anyway, sometimes first person is the best way to tell a story. Just please, don't make it present tense unless there's a really, really good reason.