I'm not sure I agree with your exact formulation of what determines a programmer's productivity (and I think the notion of "productivity" is somewhat mystifying), but I somewhat agree that we can abstract away the concrete differences in programmer familiarity and pragmatic tooling.
Although even there, I'm hesitant. There's a sense in which the idea of the language as separate from its tooling is a judgment in itself, one that tends to divide the language community into camps already. For example, Smalltalk, Forth, and Common Lisp are radically "integrated" systems, in which the languages themselves can be redefined at runtime. There, it's in a way academic to talk about the formal grammar and semantics of the language in a "Platonic" sense.
But that might be a tangential point.
Probably I am uninterested in and somewhat averse to the kind of language discussion you're defining. I think that "language systems" operate in the world in complex ways, only a fraction of which are accessible through bullet-point-style comparisons of PL features.
And something about the interminability of "language wars," like the eternally recurring static-vs-dynamic skirmishes, fuels my aversion. I've heard so many pseudo-objective arguments for and against static typing, and these arguments have had so little cash value, that I've become skeptical of the whole mode of discussion.
So I'm much more interested to hear about, say, concrete successes or failures (or ongoing attempts) using static or dynamic typing (or laziness, or what have you) in concrete real-world settings.
> For example, Smalltalk, Forth, and Common Lisp are radically "integrated" systems, in which the languages themselves can be redefined at runtime. There, it's in a way academic to talk about the formal grammar and semantics of the language in a "Platonic" sense.
Not as academic as you might think. We could analyse how easily a language makes such an integration possible. I'm not sure you could have a lispy environment in C, for instance.
Once you know what kind of ecosystem a language enables, you can compare those ecosystems. (As opposed to existing ecosystems, which are highly influenced by sheer popularity and historical accidents.)
Although even there, I'm hesitant. There's a sense in which the idea of the language as separate from its tooling is a judgment in itself, one that tends to divide the language community into camps already. For example, Smalltalk, Forth, and Common Lisp are radically "integrated" systems, in which the languages themselves can be redefined at runtime. There, it's in a way academic to talk about the formal grammar and semantics of the language in a "Platonic" sense.
But that might be a tangential point.
Probably I am uninterested in and somewhat averse to the kind of language discussion you're defining. I think that "language systems" operate in the world in complex ways, only a fraction of which are accessible through bullet-point-style comparisons of PL features.
And something about the interminability of "language wars," like the eternally recurring static-vs-dynamic skirmishes, fuels my aversion. I've heard so many pseudo-objective arguments for and against static typing, and these arguments have had so little cash value, that I've become skeptical of the whole mode of discussion.
So I'm much more interested to hear about, say, concrete successes or failures (or ongoing attempts) using static or dynamic typing (or laziness, or what have you) in concrete real-world settings.