"OpenBSD was probably right. We just need to focus on LibreSSL and forget about all of these other libraries."

Having compiled many of the popular SSL libraries as an end user, on underpowered computers, IMHO LibreSSL has the best compilation process, e.g., least complex, fastest

The library doesn't have all the features of the others but being able to compile it relatively quickly and easily IMHO is itself a "feature"

WolfSSL has many, many options. Accepting the defaults is not sufficient IME.^1 According to the cited HAProxy blog post, AWS-LC is perhaps the fastest SSL library. But Amazon "overlooked" a simple CMake option that actually made it slower than WolfSSL

To summarise, (a) in addition to library "features" I think the compilation process is also important, (b) IME getting what one wants from the various SSL libraries, if even possible, is needlessly complex and (c) FWIW, LibreSSL has (IMO) the least complicated and fastest compilation process

1. It seems like the author did not want to spend the time to learn about all the options. For the end user (cf. "developer") this make sense. As the HAProxy blog post suggests, the SSL libraries that are controlled by people who work for advertising companies, e-commerce companies and CDN companies are naturally going to put their own interests first. Those interests may not always align with the end user's interests