The math was just the prelude to my real world experience. Please try to read and comprehend the rest of my post. If you can't comprehend it, then feel free to ask for clarification or just leave it be without adding any snide remarks.

People having complained is not a real-life example of an actual performance issue. Until otherwise proven, it's a real-life example of someone complaining about some microbenchmark that, based on my real life experience, would be completely irrelevant if they actually developed their real world problem-solving program which totally shifts the bottleneck to something that actually matters.

Alternatively, it's a real-life example of poor implementation or usage, and not necessarily poor performance of the underlying primitive. This also happens a lot. "Foo is slow!" is true for a lot of things if you use them wrong. Maybe it's simply the user's ignorance, or maybe the API isn't well designed to support their case. Maybe it's poor documentation.

Also, this is a technical forum. There's absolutely nothing wrong with people doing back of the envelope calculations to analyze the scale of a problem. If more people did that while pointing at real examples with concrete numbers, maybe we'd actually know things instead of just relying on hearsay and religion. Whatever, it's a cargo cult industry.

Here's the good part: if someone who knows better comes along, they find those numbers and can tell us why we're wrong. Otherwise, let's just take everything on faith?

It's amazing how often people (like you, who haven't contributed anything except noise to the discussion) just don't want to understand a problem and if someone comes along trying to understand it and do the math, they're called a lunatic.

And this is why some of the code I get to work on is so terrible, people are wasting time and complicating code to micro-optimize things that are completely irrelevant (a conclusion one could come to either by a ballpark-estimate or a quick profile), while massive bottlenecks sit unattended.