One take on a short answer is it depends on the situation. This example looks unusual, but the dynamics outweigh static structures. If the opponents moves lead to it, then any formation might be the best for that particular game.
It's hard to evaluate a pawn position in a vacuum, but there are some general principles.
For example, squares that cannot be defended or attacked by a pawn are often considered weaknesses because they can be exploited by enemy pieces. In this position, b3 and g3 (or b6 and g6) are in that category. Pawns that are supported on one or both sides might be strong points, especially when the squares they attack are relevant to piece play.
Another part of the pawn position is whether a pawn can be advanced to protect a neighbor, protect itself, block an attack, or expel an invader. Also, the opponent's pawn position is important too.
Thirdly, the amount of time required to reach a position is also important. This formation would require at least 6 pawn moves. If you consider full development to include a minimum of moving 2 knights, 2 bishops, and castling, that's 9 moves plus whatever pawn moves are necessary to open lines. At least 2 pawn moves are needed to fully develop, taking the total to 11. Four additional moves for the formation takes it up to 15, and there are a surprising number of games that are over that fast.