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.
Comments
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.