C++ *for Git*

We've had this theoretical (and IMHO pointless) discussion C vs. C++ *in 
general*.
In no way I want to restart it. But *very specifically*, and *for Git*:
We already have strbuf "class" to do string/buffer manipulations.
Kudos to Pierre Habouzit for doing the refactoring work!
Now, what I fail to understand is how this:

static void write_global_extended_header(const unsigned char *sha1)
{
    struct strbuf ext_header;

    strbuf_init(&ext_header, 0);
    strbuf_append_ext_header(&ext_header, "comment", sha1_to_hex(sha1), 40);
    write_entry(NULL, NULL, 0, ext_header.buf, ext_header.len);
    strbuf_release(&ext_header);
}

is better than this:

static void write_global_extended_header(const unsigned char *sha1)
{
    strbuf ext_header;

    ext_header.append_ext_header("comment", sha1_to_hex(sha1), 40);
    write_entry(NULL, NULL, 0, ext_header.buf, ext_header.len);
}

?
Note, there is no Boost/multiple inheritance/template 
metaprogramming/std::string/whatever-else-scares-you-in-C++ in the second 
piece of code.
Just a very straight-forward usage of only 3 C++ features:
1. Constructors
2. Destructors
3. Better syntax (ext_header.append_ext_header vs. 
strbuf_append_ext_header(&ext_header, )

The generated code will be exactly the same.
Yet the source code becomes more readable and MUCH less error prone. How is 
this not a win?

One (sensible) argument that I've heard in the previous discussion was: you 
let a little bit of C++ in and then it gets more and more complex and the 
code quality decreases.
This problem is solved by having "quality gates".
Again, *for Git* these quality gates already exist: only few people have 
"commit access".
If/when somebody tries to be too fancy, what stops Junio from replying "we 
don't use Library-X/C++-feature-Y in Git, please change your code and 
resubmit" and throwing that fix away? Nothing.

- Dmitry