alt Hacker News>Performance wise it's unlikely C string functions are actually the bottleneck in a program. Maybe for specific programs a naive memory copy function could benefit from AVX instructions.
Many programs use lots of strings. It tends to become a bottleneck. It also tends to be very difficult to improve because the strings are everywhere in that kind of program, and refactoring to eliminate them is either impossible or very risky.
Many programs use lots of strings. It tends to become a bottleneck.
I would dispute this in anything that isn't mostly about string processing and in that case you can always easily grab different string functions, which you should probably do anyway if strings are that important.
It also tends to be very difficult to improve because the strings are everywhere in that kind of program,
I don't know what 'that kind of program' is supposed to mean.
and refactoring to eliminate them is either impossible or very risky.
This doesn't sound like a general purpose statement that applies to anything broadly.
All I'm saying is the the title is wrong and musl doesn't do much to prevent speed in a program. If someone was really trying to optimize, blaming the standard library is not going to get them very far and it's easy to work around, but needing to do that is very rare.