Heh, the car comparison really does resonate with me: I like the Porsche far more because it is a simple design, aesthetically. Sure, the actual implementation--the weird engine position and all the mechanisms needed to compensate for it--is relatively complicated. But this does not compromise the minimalist aesthetic. Quite a nice feeling, especially for a car from that era. The great performance is just a boost.

The Cadillac, on the other hand, is probably simpler mechanically. It's a much more conservative, reasonable car: after all, who would be mad enough to put an engine at the rear of their sports car? But, wow, is the design busy. Little fiddly bits, fins, wheel-covers, too much chrome...

Perhaps the best way to think about it is that the Porsche is a car with a small surface area (metaphorically) and a large depth. The Cadillac is the opposite: larger surface are but less depth. I much prefer the former.

And this preference carries over into programming languages. I always like a language with nice aesthetics--simple semantics--even if it's harder to implement efficiently. I want a language which is simultaneously simpler and more flexible than the alternatives. And good performance certainly wouldn't hurt!

At a high level, these qualities mirror preferring the Porsche, which is why I like this metaphor. Sure, it's not perfect--but it isn't supposed to be. I don't even think of it as an argument in favor of one aesthetic over another; instead, I think it's just a great way to describe why I like what I like.