Also for interoperability and portability. Pretty much every language has a way to bind to C code, and pretty much all hardware can run C.

I just did an analysis of the people involved in this project. Tox even more than cryptocat, is a very dangerous product to use. Even Tor has flaws while having many very capable cryptographers behind it. Tox appears to be swiss cheese both in code and protocol.

Rather than ricers with -Ofast kernels and overclocked CPUs it would be nice if a mature team focused on security and correctness first.

What was your "analysis" and how is it "very dangerous"?

This is a start, http://www.tox-chat.com/

Like cryptocat, tox claims things that are not proven to be true by developers that aren't qualified to be writing or designing the protocols for a secure encrypted chat.

Having the intent to do something isn't the same thing as actually being able to do it. People will use tox and get p3wnd with very dire consequences.

You say it like it's not a sign of a good developer who minds all the details. Though I'll admit I use a 16px font.

It's not a reliable sign of a good developer at all, although you'd be hard-pressed to realize that if you're hip deep in the culture.

My experience from interviewing other devs begs to differ. But why have a discussion when you can just ad homiem people?

In my experience this shows that people actually care about the tech they work with. Which is a good sign.

Caring about tooling doesn't mean you can necessarily use them well, especially when rhetoric becomes codified.