And yet, there is a good chance that C++ will start doing exactly this [1]. Because [2]: > The performance impact is negligible (less that 0.5% regression) to

And yet, there is a good chance that C++ will start doing exactly this [1]. Because [2]: > The performance impact is negligible (less that 0.5% regression) to slightly positive (that is, some code gets faster by up to 1%). The code size impact is negligible (smaller than 0.5%). Compile-time regressions are negligible. Were overheads to matter for particular coding patterns, compilers would be able to obviate most of them. > The only significant performance/code regressions are when code has very large automatic storage duration objects. We provide an attribute to opt-out of zero-initialization of objects of automatic storage duration. We then expect that programmer can audit their code for this attribute, and ensure that the unsafe subset of C++ is used in a safe manner. > This change was not possible 30 years ago because optimizations simply were not as good as they are today, and the costs were too high. The costs are now negligible. [1] https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/1401 https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/1401 [2] https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2023/p2723r1.html https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2023/p27...