There really wasn't much in terms of "good and bad" overall, just "good and bad" for Linux. At the end he says (paraphrased)"I'm not saying this is for every project, but if you are going for more than C, skip C++ and go for <list of features that ruby qualifies for>".
Re:Linus vs C++, again
by loup-vaillant on Friday June 11, 2010 @04:12AM
(#1423227)
Tu put it more plainly, he said that for any possible job, C++ is never the best tool for it.
∀job, ∃L | L(job) > C++(job)
My personal opinion is that C++ is best only when legacy code is involved, or when the team just won't learn other languages. I can understand them. Learning C++ is such an investment that they are more likely to "throw good learning after bad", or may think that learning another languages will be as difficult as learning C++.
I may change my mind when I bother to look at LLVM or V8. Perhaps.
-- > That doesn't mean Ruby is bad. Ruby is great. ActiveRecord is a great model for MVC web development. The standards of Ruby aren't good for more performance-oriented, "hard core" development - Ruby's a pretty mature language but Rubinius, the Ruby-in-Ruby project still isn't production-level. One might guess that compilers/interpreters require a different standard than web frameworks. Neither is bad though (writing a website in c/c++ would be onerous).
If the space shuttle code was written accord to the standards of Linux code, it would come apart completely too.
It's shame that Linus had to frame things as good language versus bad when it's a matter of the right tool for the right job.
Still, the proofs in the pudding and anyone who can write a kernel in C++ or Ruby would sure give those languages a boost (and these are the languages I like best).