>Have you used C++
I mainly work in C++, and have for the past 20 years. That also entails using a fair amount of C from time to time. Even if I didn't write C or C++, the performance of the standard library would affect me, as I use much software written in these languages as well.
>Why would I do that when I don't use the C library for performance sensitive programs?
If you don't use C at all then you aren't using MUSL and won't need it to be fast. If you do use MUSL then you aren't using the fastest library, so you must not care that much about performance.
>No one said anything about that, I think you're hallucinating or predicting something that never happened.
I expected that you might say "what about YOU" when I pointed out your obvious conflict of interest here. That would have been a baseless attack but more logically coherent than what you've been spamming me with.
>The stuff made 50 years ago isn't the fastest possible stuff. It's still pretty fast and if you want something faster, do something else. It's not that complicated but it seems to really upset you.
Finally, just because a project or language is old doesn't mean it currently has bad performance. The article suggests that if you care about performance, don't use MUSL. That is "using something else" and exactly what I've been saying this whole time. Why are you so stubborn that you can't even admit that there could very well exist a scenario where the suggestion to switch to another standard library makes sense? Nevermind that these scenarios are common, and the article is presenting one. You have suggested everything from massive refactoring to switching languages, anything but switching to a more suitable library.