I'm big on evidence based, but I'm also not sure I believe evidence can be adequately demonstrated. The PL used is a tool for the programmer. If you take other disciplines, has their ever been proper evidence that some tools are better then others for any practice? What knife a chef chooses to use, what design a F1 car incorporates, etc. It seems a lot of it depends on the practitioner's style and symbiosis.
Most evidence based research into PL seems very inadequate, and I'm not sure we'll ever have good experiments. How do you measure the language over its level of mastery? Certain novice somewhat being more productive or making less bugs on trivial programs in beginner contexts doesn't tell you much.
Also, the very clear PL improvements have mostly been universally adopted. Lexical scopes for example, if/else conditionals, procedures, runtime types, GCs, dependency managers, unit and integ tests, etc.
It's only the insignificant details which are often debated. And for those, I think it becomes much more a decision to be made by masters, like your favourite chef knife, you pick what best fits your style and maximises your own productivity while minimizing your own weaknesses.