That's the dogma, but is there a reason for it to actually be true? All we know for sure is that there isn't a clear winner yet.

Software environments, languages, and other such abstractions aren't there to be perfect. They are there to help human beings manage absurd numbers of machine instructions. Maybe when we fully understand the human mind, we'll figure out the perfect way to map machine instructions to concepts that humans can grok. Until then, we'll have to make somewhat subjective design decisions in the face of uncertain constraints and priorities, which is certainly not going to lead to a "best" solution.

Not dogma, but the conclusion of reason and experience. You don't build a bridge and a house with the same tools. Why should software be different?

If you know what you know your priorities, constraints and "what are trying to do" (goals), then, is there such a thing as a best software environment?