You may detect some notes of enthusiasm in the ways that I speak of this framework.

For various psychological reasons, I believe that discussions of programming languages, by people who actually use them, are always partisan -- no matter whether they are handled crudely or cordially. Part of is that these languages are a mode of our own thinking, so criticisms of the languages can feel like criticisms of our our thinking. Imagine if I could only think in English (which is true), and some guys say that it is a completely backwards language to think in, and that all problems are best formulated in some language that is completely alien to me. Sure I'd have a reaction!

Elsewhere I have seen discussions between intelligent colleagues really deteriorate over these matters. In the end, it's as if they were debating the pros and cons of French versus Spanish, or Lions versus Tigers. I'll take the Mane over the Stripes, any day!

There is another reason why it is hard for programmers to maintain objectivity about languages. The analogy to two scientists discussing and comparing lions and tigers is incomplete, because programming languages are actually _used_ to get jobs done. If I needed a lion or a tiger as a bodyguard, then I might really think that one is better than the other, if, for example, it had a more menacing stare.