[geofft]

Argument 1 is nontechnical and by someone who does not have a lot of experience writing userspace software.

Argument 2 is valid, but only applies to kernels, and also only applies to 1992 (it works a lot better now).

[kaffeinecoma]

My comment wasn't meant to knock C++; it was to point out that Linus' opposition to the language is well-documented, and an official git-rewrite in C++ is very unlikely.

[geofft]

Linus is almost entirely uninvolved with git these days, though. `git log --author=Torvalds` finds no commits in 2015 or so far this year, three patches in 2014, none in 2013, five in 2012, four in 2011... if the git core team felt using C++ was a possible course, Linus would not be involved in the decision.

(That's probably why I misunderstoood your statement an argument against C++ on its own merits.)