[LtRandolph]

While we're not perfect, I'm happy to defend this decision. ;-)

We did a ton of tracing and perf/memory captures to identify that string allocations were a significant drain in many locations in the code. We don't see those issues with our other uses of std:: (vector, unordered_map, set, etc.), just with std::string. So it was a logical place to do targeted optimization.

We did that optimization before lua because of the fact that there's a very clean way to make the foundational debt into MacGyver debt, since there's a trivial conversion between std::string and AString. Sadly we haven't been able to come up with any bite-sized moves that we can do to phase out the wasteful use of lua as kvp storage buckets. It's an all-or-nothing problem that makes it a much bigger chunk of work to undertake.

[brann0]

Great answer, thanks for the insight. I'm really puzzled at how many people aggressively answers when someone refuses to use standard libraries (or practices).

We were in a similar situation and using our own string implementation improved performance and reduced memory fragmentation.

Some people refuses to accept that certain software cannot rely on general purpose libraries and need to roll their own solution adapted to their specific needs.

[ryandrake]

Thanks for both your answers. It was not my intention to come off as aggressive there. Key takeaway is to measure rather than take it on faith that the library is the bottleneck. Sadly not everyone does measure.