Java does have pattern matching, but while some programmers certainly like having more features and a stronger type system to be, there's clearly nothing object

Java does have pattern matching, but while some programmers certainly like having more features and a stronger type system to be, there's clearly nothing objective about that preference, considering that the only languages that are as popular as Java or more these days are JavaScript and Python. Of course, no one argues that more popular necessarily means better, but since software has huge economic value (and the vast majority of software is done to further economic activity) you'd expect some correlation between "better" and "more value". Given that for decades now the market consistently prefers the languages that you consider "worse", then one of two things: either there's a huge market inefficiency that somehow no one manages to exploit, or that what you consider better is not, in fact, objective. In short, there's no doubt different programmers have different preferences on what they consider better (though those preferences are clearly not distributed evenly), but if you want to claim that something is objectively better, it has to be better by some objective measure that is related to the actual value that people expect to gain from software. The bigger the gap between your characterisation and market behaviour, the harder it would be to support claims of objectivity.