Comment by tialaramex

> With all due respect, are you sure you're not the one being dogmatic here?

Obviously like Michael Burry it is always possible that I'm wrong and I can't see why. But I did give you a specific example where the dogma says well we have to choose this unsafe way to do it, but the reality is that's not only unsafe it's also slower. It is just worse.

I am glad to hear that you measured. I've been yelling at people for not measuring for much longer than Rust has existed - if people measure and choose C++ because the numbers were better I feel a lot better about that outcome.

As to being the right tool, I firmly believe we should use a lot more niche languages which do only one narrow thing very well. One common thing you'll see argued about the Memory Safe languages is that they need runtime bounds checks and such checks are a performance cost the unsafe languages do not incur. WUFFS illustrates that if we're willing to give up generality we can have a language which is entirely safe but doesn't do runtime bounds checks - because it proved mathematically at compile time that your code has no bounds misses so such checks are needless.

Arguably for HFT in particular the dirty secret is that if things go badly enough wrong you just say "Oops" and get a do-over because money isn't real.