> IMO the issue with the given Postgres example isn't that it is written in C therefore it is slow, it is why it doesn't use all of C's features to make it fast

> IMO the issue with the given Postgres example isn't that it is written in C therefore it is slow, it is why it doesn't use all of C's features to make it faster (assuming there is a real performance issue here - it is very possible that the Postgres authors didn't consider it a real issue until now). Right, but that's kind of missing the author's point, which isn't "things that are written in C are slow" so much as "because C lacks generics and has a relatively-inefficient standard library implementation based on function pointers, most implementations do not take the extra steps of 'using all of C's features' to do something faster (because it's a lot of work, and the standard implementation exists)". It's mostly just an argument that generic-lacking languages make it easier to do something slower than something faster, and most people and projects follow the path of least resistance. That there are more efficient implementations available if you sink more effort into it isn't in dispute.