"The paper shows that expressivity, power, and conciseness come the most from those features…"
I do not accept your implicit claim that a language must be more expressive, powerful, or concise to be more productive.
As a counter-argument for the expressive claim, consider a language that required one to prefix each line with the number of non-blank characters it contains. I am fairly sure I would be more productive using a preprocessor that computed those prefixes for me. Real world examples of the same are the abolishment of line numbers in Basic, assemblers that know about structure offsets, the C preprocessor, and type inference. Each, I think, helped increase productivity.
'Power' cannot be a factor at all, as basicly all programming language are equally powerful; there are no degrees of Turing completeness.
That leaves conciseness. I do not think that claim would need debunking, but for completeness: if that helped productivity, everybody would use single-character variable and function names (should mostly be possible in languages that allow Unicode source code), and program in APL or perl.
There are no real Turing-complete languages, as Turing-completeness requires infinite hardware. And certainly there are degrees of incompleteness, expressed by which programs run out of memory faster.
I do not accept your implicit claim that a language must be more expressive, powerful, or concise to be more productive.
As a counter-argument for the expressive claim, consider a language that required one to prefix each line with the number of non-blank characters it contains. I am fairly sure I would be more productive using a preprocessor that computed those prefixes for me. Real world examples of the same are the abolishment of line numbers in Basic, assemblers that know about structure offsets, the C preprocessor, and type inference. Each, I think, helped increase productivity.
'Power' cannot be a factor at all, as basicly all programming language are equally powerful; there are no degrees of Turing completeness.
That leaves conciseness. I do not think that claim would need debunking, but for completeness: if that helped productivity, everybody would use single-character variable and function names (should mostly be possible in languages that allow Unicode source code), and program in APL or perl.