That's a strange dismissal. `Optional<T>` isn't "perceived" safety -- it eliminates a whole category of bugs (null dereferences, uninitialized reads) at the type-system level, with zero runtime overhead versus a raw pointer or sentinel value.

If you think that's uninteresting, that's an aesthetic preference, not a technical argument.

But let's set that aside, because it's also irrelevant to the compile-time claim.

The point of the example wasn't "look at this fascinating class," it was "here is a real template, used 911 times across the codebase, in a public header -- exactly the scenario you said would be slow -- and it costs under 1ms per instantiation."

You can swap `Optional` for any non-trivial template of similar complexity and the numbers will look similar.

On your 1 MLOC/sec benchmark: that's a fair reference point for C-like code, but it's not the right yardstick for template instantiation, which is doing semantic work (overload resolution, SFINAE, constraint checking) that a C compiler simply isn't.

Comparing them is comparing different jobs.

The honest question is whether template compilation is slow relative to what it's actually doing, and in well-structured code, it isn't.

And yes, `Optional.hpp` is a header -- that's the whole point of the demonstration. I'm not claiming you should hide every template in a .cpp file. I'm claiming that even templates in headers, instantiated hundreds of times, are cheap when written with compile times in mind.

The "put templates in .cpp where it makes sense" advice is for the specific cases, not a blanket rule.