That can be accomplished for most software projects in most programming environments and their languages, to more or less extent within their limitations, given a proper amount of hard graft to choose the proper constructs and then brutally test them.
Power, on the other hand, must be dependent on what is required to wring safety out of the limitations, weaknesses, and pitfalls of the chosen implementation tooling. Power can include speed of development, speed of execution, amount of concurrency, fault tolerance, and so on. Regardless, power must be built upon safe software constructs, safe in the sense that the resulting system performs as intended.
A civil engineer will know that a specific kind of bridge constructed out of certain materials using certain techniques will be able to withstand certain events like an earthquake of a certain magnitude and will be able to perform at a certain level, such as tons of traffic at a time or somesuch. As well, they will have a pretty good idea of how long it will take to build it. Such is the maturity (and relative simplicity!) of bridge building.
We have no such framework in our industry. Focusing on programming languages shows the immaturity of our industry, which is the most difficult we have yet undertaken as a technological civilization. The proof of that statement is that all our technologies depend on software systems.
I cut my teeth in the industry on the test side at MS; it was a bit adversarial with the dev side. And there was a third side to get us both on documentation.
It was frustrating but, I think we made Good Stuff (NT4, Win2k).
I have not seen that rigor since.
I could have written this entire post, but especially the last line. The 4th Doctor theme is my phone ringtone on the very rare occasions when it’s not on silent.
Recusal is evaluated case-by-case so an all-for-everything situation, like you've described, is unwarranted.