If they’re running the project with a Linus-type approach, they won’t consider backlash to be interesting or relevant, unless it is accompanied by specific statements of impact. Generic examples for any language to explain why:

> How dare you! I’m going to boycott git!!

Self-identified as irrelevant (objector will not be using git); no reply necessary, expect a permaban.

> I don’t want to install language X to build and run git.

Most users do not build git from source. Since no case is made why this is relevant beyond personal preference, it will likely be ignored.

> Adopting language X might inhibit community participation.

This argument has almost certainly already been considered. Without a specific reason beyond the possibility, such unsupported objections will not lead to new considerations, especially if raised by someone who is not a regular contributor.

> Language X isn’t fully-featured on platform Y.

Response will depend on whether the Git project decides to support platform Y or not, whether the missing features are likely to affect Git uses, etc. Since no case is provided about platform Y’s usage, it’ll be up to the Git team to investigate (or not) before deciding

> Language X will prevent Git from being deployed on platform Z, which affects W installations based on telemetry and recent package downloads, due to incompatibility Y.

This would be guaranteed to be evaluated, but the outcome could be anywhere from “X will be dropped” to “Y will be patched” to “Z will not be supported”.