> This is true for debates like Java vs C# or Python vs Ruby, but some languages are unambiguously better than others. I strongly agree with that. What I find

> This is true for debates like Java vs C# or Python vs Ruby, but some languages are unambiguously better than others. I strongly agree with that. What I find ridiculous is fanboyism, people that don't want to recognize the draft level of thisthose language/s. > Deciding on a 'best' language often comes down to IDE support and library availability, rather than just the merits of the languages. The Best Tool For The Job. True. But don't think business and practical use or usage of the language for a minute. There must be an absolute in languages and its implementation. I mean theoretically some languages are better than others. For instance take D, it does more and better than C, C++ (and Java?). I think this debate has been implicitly solved, basically there is the scientific side dedicated to solve piratical dev issues, implementation details, math theory. In this area we can find Scheme, LISP and ML languages. The other side is the business, engineering and fanboism where focus is on real world problems, where pragmatism beats theory and whether it's cool or not. Here there is almost only imperatives and compiled languages. Why? Winners write History and Thruth. > The only ambiguity over their superiority comes because you can't trust programmers not to use the many new complex features of C++ and Scala, so there is a risk of the results being too complicated. And AFAIK that's what killed Scheme and LISP, because the syntax is too powerful. And what still kills dynamic languages in general.