> you're playing an old saxophone, with so many extra keys that you'll never memorize all the conbinations, and the music is being slightly changed at every pr

> you're playing an old saxophone, with so many extra keys that you'll never memorize all the conbinations, and the music is being slightly changed at every practice. A new instrument, with less keys to achieve the same thing, allows you to memorize them well, adapt to today's song, and play it with flair and improvisation. Well have you ever played saxophone ? Old saxophones don't have "extra keys", and better instruments don't have less keys to achieve the same thing, because you don't achieve the same thing with less keys. You're talking about different instruments then, and as musicians are generally not stuck on the notion of productivity, they don't even try to quantify such things. This is maybe the most upsetting analogy i have ever saw. You're literally talking about things you don't have a clue about (i'm speaking about the musical analogy here). Your observations on good and bad languages is very vague, and you're only moving the problem to changing requirements, but then you have the same sets of things to prove : Show me hard proof that productivity will be superior with language x than with language y. I'm totally open to the idea that it can be superior. I'm precisely saying, you have no real clue as if it is or not, and it's a thousand times harder to define than to define if a saxophone is superior or inferior to another saxophone. I have trouble seeing why the idea that improvements in productivity relative to the "quality" of a language is something that is very hard to quantify, has so much trouble getting through this argument. Maybe it is because, as hackers, we have trouble accepting that our pet language of the day isn't necessarily better, in a production environment, than one of the heavy weights.