Generally, I have noticed the trend that a software which is praised as superior often comes with a worse user interface, or ignores some other part of user experience.
Consider an equilibrium of various software products none of which are strictly superior or inferior to each other. Upon hearing that the best argument someone can make for software X is that it has feature Y (which is unrelated to UI), should your expectation of good IU go up or go down?
(To try it a different way: suppose you are in a highly competitive company like Facebooglazon and you meet a certain programmer who is the rudest most arrogant son of a bitch you ever met - yet he is somehow still employed there. What should you infer about the quality of the code he writes?)
This is a nice example how with different models the same evidence can be evaluated differently.
My model is that programming languages are used for making programs, and for languages used in real production part of that effort goes to the positive-feedback loop of creating better tools and libraries for given language. So if some language makes the production easier -- people like Paul Graham suggest that Lisp is 10 times more productive than other languages --, I would expect better everything.
In other words, the "equilibrium of various software prod...
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, even in Discussion, it goes here.