OK, it is impossible to declare that a saw is better than a hammer, or
vice-versa. But certainly some saws are better than other saws; I know,
because I've owned some cheap, not very good ones.
 
Also, I have owned for 41 years (it was a wedding gift) what I consider
to be the VERY BEST bar tool ever designed and manufactured; it is a
combination jigger, corkscrew, and ice-cube-smasher. It may not be able
to perform its three separate functions quite as efficiently as separate
implements designed for single tasks [I think of the currently available
"Screw-Pull", for example], but I would happily give up the separate
instruments if I could still count on being able to buy a replacement
combination tool.
 
Hence, wouldn't a language which could effectively do a variety of
things be superior to one which is more limited in the variety of things
it can do?
 
Alternatively, though probably related: wouldn't a language that is
relatively easily adaptable to change be superior to one that is less
adaptable? (For example, might not German be considered a superior
language to French because of the ease with which new composite words
can be created?
 
Another thought: might not ease-of-acquisition be a factor in judging
languages on a good--better--best scale?  (Which is to say, I guess,
isn't a language that has a logical system of verb conjugations superior
to one that has a considerable number of "irregular" conjugations that
may be easy enough for a native speaker who literally spends a lifetime
learning the language?)
 
Finally, to repeat my original question more bluntly: is there any
difference between "better" and "inherently better"?
 
Happy Holidays!
 
Norm Carlson