No I don't think there is any objective truth here, because something as complex as a programming language and software development skills can only be expressed as a vector in a multi-dimensional space of countless dimensions.

A language has benefits along many axis. And this has to be coupled with developers who each have strenghts and weaknesses against numerous other axis.

What you end up with are combinations of developers and languages in a large cloud of points in multi-dimensional space. There is no objective or "true" way of picking points in this space and saying some are better than others.

There is no objective way of scaling the axis so we cannot simply look the lenght of the vectors. Sure we can make a whole bunch of educated guesses to make some educated guesses about how good something is. But all you get is a very roundabout answer.

It is like trying to rate a food and music. Is Rammstein better than Bethoven? How can you even compare? The style of music is too different and appeal to such different senses and preferences.

Does it mean everything is equal or random? No, I don't think so, but I don't prescribe to the idea that we can reduce complex problems down to a number and say one is larger than the other.

Instead I have faith in what we are doing right now. Articulating points of views using natural language. It may offend those who want precise and absolute truth, but I belive that is the best we get.

I believe arguments must be made through a combination of statistics, numbers, pictures and logical reasoning. You cannot escape the human analysis. And that analysis will always carry some biases and be influenced by preferences of those making the analysis. It will always be up to the reader to judge the soundness or the argument.