2 ms·

C strings are used extensively in C++. Again you prove how inexperienced you are. You can try to be patronizing if you want, but this doesn't make sense with y

C strings are used extensively in C++. Again you prove how inexperienced you are. You can try to be patronizing if you want, but this doesn't make sense with you not understanding memory access patterns. If someone uses C++ they will use C++ strings. Have you used C++? It works well and it has been around for 40 years, you should give it a try. Keep deflecting with bullshit that is irrelevant to the choice of library, and that can't be changed but for massive refactoring. You painting yourself into a corner has nothing to do with a C library being a few percentage points slower. This is not a general scenario, it's something you are dealing with because you can't optimize C strings. If you think memory access patterns are 'bullshit' you haven't done much optimization. That's everything in modern optimization. If there is an expert somewhere around you, please talk to them so you can get up to speed on modern optimization. Minimizing allocations is table stakes, memory access is the meat. If you have any examples on github of things you think "can't" be optimized, go ahead and link it and tell me what a profiler shows, and I will explain what to do. I've made my point already, you just haven't accepted it. You made your claim, you haven't had any evidence or explanation, that's how it works. You say the same thing over and over and get more upset, but that isn't evidence. Show me where musl prevents someone from writing a fast program. Insults and hallucinated quotes aren't a good foundation for proving your point. If you have to pretend that someone said something different, then maybe you aren't really making sense. how about applying those elite optimization skills you claim to have to the MUSL code to make it faster. Why would I do that when I don't use the C library for performance sensitive programs? You never seem to be able to confront this. The stuff made 50 years ago isn't the fastest possible stuff. It's still pretty fast and if you want something faster, do something else. It's not that complicated but it seems to really upset you. I don't have any other conflicts of interest such as being a glibc developer, so don't start up with that shit either. No one said anything about that, I think you're hallucinating or predicting something that never happened.

wakawaka28 1mo ago
Stop spamming me with burning straw men bro. I am slightly irritated with you because I think you're trolling me or at least wasting my time by being an idiot. I have asked some rhetorical questions in my response below. Do not feel obligated to pipe up with more nonsense in response. >Have you used C++ I mainly work in C++, and have for the past 20 years. That also entails using a fair amount of C from time to time. Even if I didn't write C or C++, the performance of the standard library would affect me, as I use much software written in these languages as well. >Why would I do that when I don't use the C library for performance sensitive programs? If you don't use C at all then you aren't using MUSL and won't need it to be fast. If you do use MUSL then you aren't using the fastest library, so you must not care that much about performance. >No one said anything about that, I think you're hallucinating or predicting something that never happened. I expected that you might say "what about YOU" when I pointed out your obvious conflict of interest here. That would have been a baseless attack but more logically coherent than what you've been spamming me with. >The stuff made 50 years ago isn't the fastest possible stuff. It's still pretty fast and if you want something faster, do something else. It's not that complicated but it seems to really upset you. Finally, just because a project or language is old doesn't mean it currently has bad performance. The article suggests that if you care about performance, don't use MUSL. That is "using something else" and exactly what I've been saying this whole time. Why are you so stubborn that you can't even admit that there could very well exist a scenario where the suggestion to switch to another standard library makes sense? Nevermind that these scenarios are common, and the article is presenting one. You have suggested everything from massive refactoring to switching languages, anything but switching to a more suitable library.
- CyberDildonics 1mo ago
  I'm not sure where the entitlement and expectation comes from that you can reply to me and that I won't reply back. This seems like a transparent hail mary to continue to avoid confronting what I already explained in detail. You can try to call my single replies "spam", but I think if you could actually respond to the things I've said you would have done it already. If you do use MUSL then you aren't using the fastest library, You are contradicting yourself with logic that doesn't add up. The default libc isn't the fastest way to do things anyway. So by your own logic the title should be "don't use libc if you care about performance". This of course doesn't make sense either because if you aren't using libc then musl wouldn't matter. This is why the title doesn't make sense and why your defense of it doesn't make sense either. You having software that is not only slow but slow because it calls into the default libc has nothing to do with this. Why aren't you mentioning taking it further and linking in a better allocator? Maybe because it's the same idea but contradicts what you keep trying to say to avoid the actual point, which is that the title is wrong. If you're going on a long trip and you get better shoes and can walk to your car 25% faster, how much is that going to speed up your trip overall? It will be basically nothing, because you are optimizing something almost irrelevant. I can use musl and create software that outperforms whatever someone else makes using the default standard library. If this is possible, and I explained why it is in detail, then why would the title be true? Explain that instead of getting upset and avoiding the heart of the discussion with irrelevant tangents about your own legacy programs.
  - wakawaka28 1mo ago
    [dead]

wakawaka28 1mo ago

Stop spamming me with burning straw men bro. I am slightly irritated with you because I think you're trolling me or at least wasting my time by being an idiot. I have asked some rhetorical questions in my response below. Do not feel obligated to pipe up with more nonsense in response. >Have you used C++ I mainly work in C++, and have for the past 20 years. That also entails using a fair amount of C from time to time. Even if I didn't write C or C++, the performance of the standard library would affect me, as I use much software written in these languages as well. >Why would I do that when I don't use the C library for performance sensitive programs? If you don't use C at all then you aren't using MUSL and won't need it to be fast. If you do use MUSL then you aren't using the fastest library, so you must not care that much about performance. >No one said anything about that, I think you're hallucinating or predicting something that never happened. I expected that you might say "what about YOU" when I pointed out your obvious conflict of interest here. That would have been a baseless attack but more logically coherent than what you've been spamming me with. >The stuff made 50 years ago isn't the fastest possible stuff. It's still pretty fast and if you want something faster, do something else. It's not that complicated but it seems to really upset you. Finally, just because a project or language is old doesn't mean it currently has bad performance. The article suggests that if you care about performance, don't use MUSL. That is "using something else" and exactly what I've been saying this whole time. Why are you so stubborn that you can't even admit that there could very well exist a scenario where the suggestion to switch to another standard library makes sense? Nevermind that these scenarios are common, and the article is presenting one. You have suggested everything from massive refactoring to switching languages, anything but switching to a more suitable library.

CyberDildonics 1mo ago
I'm not sure where the entitlement and expectation comes from that you can reply to me and that I won't reply back. This seems like a transparent hail mary to continue to avoid confronting what I already explained in detail. You can try to call my single replies "spam", but I think if you could actually respond to the things I've said you would have done it already. If you do use MUSL then you aren't using the fastest library, You are contradicting yourself with logic that doesn't add up. The default libc isn't the fastest way to do things anyway. So by your own logic the title should be "don't use libc if you care about performance". This of course doesn't make sense either because if you aren't using libc then musl wouldn't matter. This is why the title doesn't make sense and why your defense of it doesn't make sense either. You having software that is not only slow but slow because it calls into the default libc has nothing to do with this. Why aren't you mentioning taking it further and linking in a better allocator? Maybe because it's the same idea but contradicts what you keep trying to say to avoid the actual point, which is that the title is wrong. If you're going on a long trip and you get better shoes and can walk to your car 25% faster, how much is that going to speed up your trip overall? It will be basically nothing, because you are optimizing something almost irrelevant. I can use musl and create software that outperforms whatever someone else makes using the default standard library. If this is possible, and I explained why it is in detail, then why would the title be true? Explain that instead of getting upset and avoiding the heart of the discussion with irrelevant tangents about your own legacy programs.
- wakawaka28 1mo ago
  [dead]