>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.

I'm telling you that I've seen it, in stuff as diverse as video games and robotics. Lots of things use strings as values. It's easy to say "just change everything in millions of lines of code" when you aren't the one who has to make that change.

By the way most software does copious amounts of string processing... I think that should be common knowledge, but I guess it isn't.

>This doesn't sound like a general purpose statement that applies to anything broadly.

You sound like you have zero experience. If your config is in strings, and hundreds of thousands of lines of code already rely on the string-ness of the data, then you just can't make the change easily.

>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.

I believe the title is accurate. People in performance-sensitive areas gripe about libraries, even standard libraries, quite often. I don't mean to insult you but you're making bold assertions despite clearly lacking the experience to know how things are done in industry generally.