He is right most of the time though.

No, not really, he's just loud.

Oh okay. I think I'm going to trust the guy who wrote the linux kernel over...duaneb.

No, he has good points, but doesn't really rely on logic so much as vitriolic humor. For example:

http://forum.gwan.com/index.php?p=/discussion/587/its-bs-bec...

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.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise :) merely stating what it is he'd do.

No, he's just prolific.

Is he actually? He only "has" two projects that anyone cares about to my knowledge.

He meant it in terms of calling people stupid.

Two prolific projects that amount to far more than the vast majority of us of is will ever accomplish.

I suppose "prolific" does not necessary imply breadth or depth.

I believe an operating system typically implies both.

Prolific typically implies many things. I have a deep respect for linux and git, but neither are really prolific.

Anyway, I thought the OP meant he was prolific in his tirades, which is very true.

The way I interpreted the word was more "doing lots of things" and less "doing lots of a few things". Either is legitimate in retrospect.