[The recent Ruby security vulnerabilities], and others like it in Python/Perl/etc are interesting for a lot of reasons but mostly because too many people point to using these languages as a safe alternative to C/C++...
— Daniel Peck, Vulnerabilities in Interpereted Languages
Right, because there's no difference in requiring everyone to get their pointers and allocations and deallocations and initializations right as you do in C and C++ and requiring only the people writing the compiler or interpreter and possibly any extensions to get these right, as you do in Ruby, Perl, PHP, and Python. A well-designed language extension system will even allow you to reuse the language's memory allocation/deallocation system, further minimzing your risk.
Apparently this part of security is not one where minimizing your exposure is valuable.
(Then again, you may want to reconsider taking security advice from someone whose command of technical details misses the fact that, of the languages listed, only Ruby is "interpereted" [sic] -- and interpret/compile is generally an implementation detail, not a language requirement.)
