The author's only argument against C++ is located in the article comments and is "Regarding the use of C++, that's a non-starter; malloc goes in libc!". As the

The author's only argument against C++ is located in the article comments and is "Regarding the use of C++, that's a non-starter; malloc goes in libc!". As the author was replacing the malloc[0][1] implementation, that seems a reasonable argument. [0] - http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=jemalloc&sektion=3 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=jemalloc&sektion=3 [1] - http://www.canonware.com/jemalloc/ http://www.canonware.com/jemalloc/