Someone mentioned a while ago how a common pattern of comments on programming forums is to take the most literal and uncharitable interpretation of a post, and reply to explain how this extreme view is mistaken.
I've never seen anyone defend the idea that writing something in C++ will necessarily make it high-performance and I would be very, very surprised if that's what the OP meant.
what a coincidence- I was thinking about this this A.M. I was conceptualizing a flowchart. Something like: 1. Observation 2. Massive overgeneralization of observation and posting to Internet. 3. Refutation of massive overgeneralization. 4. Insistence on narrow range of circumstances in which observation is true. 5. Announcement of extraordinary exceptions. 6. Anecdote in which even that exception was inadequate. 7. Call for advanced structural frameworks to encompass vastly differing perspectives. 8. Recollection of failed attempt at structure in 1976 (Optional: suggestion to live in geodesic homes). 9. Platitudes about how the details don't matter anyway. 10. Violent exasperation that details won't matter, including extreme hypothetical circumstances. 11. Shifting of blame to political figures and/or youth and their gadgets.
I've never seen anyone defend the idea that writing something in C++ will necessarily make it high-performance and I would be very, very surprised if that's what the OP meant.