I always push back on decisions that have benefits with reduced debugability. It's rarely worth the hassle to take on a "more performant" or easier to develop tool if devs can't easily figure out what's wrong with it. Especially in a big company where people move around, and tend not to be familiar with tools...
Why aren't we writing everything in assembler? It's so much faster!
There's a huge number of business process where execution time is almost a non-issue. As long as the thing runs every day/week/month/quarter no one will give a crap. Development time, supportabilty, and onboarding time for new developers tend to matter way more for those sorts of processes. For things your shipping out to end users? Optimization and speed tend to matter enough to justify the development cost, but there's an absolute ton of internal business processes, and even internal applications, where optimizing it would cost way more than just running with what the dev team already knows.
C++ is generally used by millions of people to whom execution time matters quite a bit. The language is literally designed to force the programmer to decide how to balance CPU cycles with language abstractions and features. It's already hard to debug compared with a lot of other languages (which are generally slower).
The fact that you (and GGP) rarely encounter situations where run time is critical is a limitation on your experience, not a universal law that applies everywhere.
>> Efficiency has been a major design goal for C++ from the beginning, also the principle of “zero overhead” for any feature that is not used in a program. It has been a guiding principle from the earliest days of C++ that “you don’t pay for what you don’t use”.
Do you get those ones that are thinner than normal floss? Because it won't be as effective if so. Tried the Listerine ones but I'm curious which brand you get that has bioplastic
