Basically, his entire argument is the slippery slope fallacy based on assumptions that may never occur. Plenty of great software is written in C++, even using STL, that doesn't lead to software that is any more difficult to maintain than the equivalent C program. For one thing, refactoring due to design change is a pain in the ass with or without objects. He also doesn't address the fact that polymorphism is very unwieldy in C. While it's very defensible to NOT use C++, I don't think that saying that "C is the only sane language" is fair. That, or Apple, Google, Microsoft, Oracle, and Facebook are full of people who are barking mad.
However, in an environment like Linux and git where code practices may be less restrictive than a corporate or authoritarian environment, the natural restrictions of C (i.e. lack of easy-to-abuse features) may seem like a feature in itself.
Then why not write a rebuttal and ask for his feedback? It's impossible to anticipate every possible counter to an argument, and it would be prohibitive to list and rebut them all within a single message.
> Plenty of great software is written in C++, even using STL, that doesn't lead to software that is any more difficult to maintain than the equivalent C program.
I don't deny that great software is written in C++, but what is your evidence that C and C++ have the same maintenance burden.
Well, it has already happened at least once for Git [1]. I seem to remember someone else suggesting to move the Linux Kernel to C++ ending up with a similar rant (someone can feel free to dig that up if they have the time).
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if he was writing a 'normal' application or even a compiler he'd be tempted to use some subset of C++ or maybe even Java.
As it is, for the kernel you'd be crazy to use something other than C.
> I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if he was writing a 'normal' application or even a compiler he'd be tempted to use some subset of C++ or maybe even Java.
