> Most new sciences - e.g. electronics - gather a mature body of knowledge relatively quickly. We know exactly how transistors work and how to use them, for exa

> Most new sciences - e.g. electronics - gather a mature body of knowledge relatively quickly. We know exactly how transistors work and how to use them, for example. Nobody argues about how to calculate the current flowing through a wire. Ever since we made computers fast enough to implement basic things in the 1980/1990s, the debate has never been a "scientific" one. It's all about programmer preference and psychology. Equations about electricity is relatively simple. Yet we don't have equations about programmer brains. The only way we can "scientifically" experiment with programming languages is to invent new languages/features and see how programmers react. Do they make fewer mistakes? Do they see increased productivity? Do they "like" it or even swear by it? To a very large extent (more-so than most would imagine), trying to pin down "programming best practices" is like trying to set a standard for writing novels. You have common tropes and literary devices (aka "design patterns"), but the expressiveness of languages (both human and computer) makes it hard to make final, scientific conclusions. The electricity on a wire thing is really much more simpler.