This argument will never be resolved because it's dominated by psychological factors. Once you've adapted to environment A, A's costs (e.g. hoops the compiler makes you jump through / time spent tracking down type errors) become habitual and you don't notice them anymore. Meanwhile the costs of unfamiliar environment B are extremely highlighted in your attention. Similarly, if you like and identify with A, its benefits will be top-of-mind for you, while if you don't like B (and nobody likes B), you'll discount its benefits.

It gets worse. Sometimes benefits are costs until you make it through a learning curve. An example is parentheses in Lisp. They stick out like a sore thumb until one day they don't. Later you realize that they were a liberating force all along, and you now have anti-gravity powers you never dreamt of. (<-- This is an example of how people talk when they are adapted to an environment whose costs they no longer count and whose benefits are top-of-mind for them.) We can't even agree on what the costs and benefits are, let alone how to measure them.

It's no wonder that people feel so strongly about this dispute. When you don't count the costs of your preferred environment, and only count the benefits, it gets obvious pretty quickly that other people are idiots. For some reason the idiots feel the opposite and perversely insist on it.

It gets worse. Imagine that you're a decent, fairminded sort and so, magnanimously as is your wont, you decide to give the idiots a fair shake—you know, just to verify that you're being fair and whatnot. You fire up whatever it is (Clojure? OCaml? needless to say, you make a charitable choice) and start programming for a while. What happens? All the costs of unfamiliarity hit you in the face. Not one of the benefits that has lived at the top of your mind for years is anywhere to be seen. This thing doesn't even catch trivial type errors at compile time! / I can't even execute this bit of code in a REPL! This is a painful experience. It can even be an enraging one, for example if you are forced for some extraneous reason to work on a system you didn't create using tools you don't like. Most people who go through that experience once have their views solidified for life. Meanwhile someone else had the opposite experience.

Given how passionately people feel about this and the certainty in forum threads about it, it's curious (or maybe to be expected) that the question of published evidence comes up so rarely. HN user luu did the definitive survey on this: https://danluu.com/empirical-pl/. The short version is that such studies as there are don't address the core question and/or find insignificant effects and/or their designs tip obviously to one side or the other (and I do mean obviously, like comparing Peter Norvig's code to that of random undergrads).

Bias dominates every other factor, put together, times at least 10. As long as that's true, we can't say anything rational without genuinely accounting for bias. Do we actually know how to do that? The studies don't seem able to. These debates certainly don't, nor do they try. Maybe the interesting phenomenon here is actually the bias itself. Maybe it's not that we like an environment because we're more productive in it, but that we're more productive because we like it. Maybe we should get better at liking things.

The debate about this tends to remain stuck at a low level because once you've been around the block enough times you realize that it hurts to bang your head against a wall so you stop. Thus the vocal population undergoes a perpetual exodus of the experienced, but makes up for it with a fresh supply of enthusiasts, reminding one of the adage, "I arrive at the office late, but make up for it by leaving early."