You are speaking in vague platitudes, most of which don't contradict what I wrote in the article at all. I was speaking of a specific context in which I was wo

You are speaking in vague platitudes, most of which don't contradict what I wrote in the article at all. I was speaking of a specific context in which I was working (writing C or C++ extensions for Python and Ruby), and addressing a specific design question (how much of the library should be in C or C++ vs. Python or Ruby). I guess I didn't specifically say this, but I thought I made it pretty obvious that I'm working in a situation where performance is a factor. My observations were also specific to the question of the relative cost of creating layering abstractions in Python/Ruby vs. C/C++. > And yeah, C89, C99 and the C++es have a very high overhead of abstraction: clarity, concision Now you're just being silly. Abstractions are sometimes good, making things clearer and more concise. The wrong abstractions can make code less clear and concise. Here is my solution to that problem: if an abstraction is not making your code clearer and more concise, don't use it. Saying that abstractions in C and C++ are inherently less clear and concise just shows anti-C/C++ bias.