They do mention "std::print"[2] from C++23 (which uses std::format) and compile times, but, they don't touch on "std::format" at all.

See:

[1] https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/format/format.html

[2] https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/io/print.html

Comparing using `hyperfine --warmup 3 "g++ FILE.cpp"` (and some flags for fmt) I get 72ms vs 198ms. So I changed my mind and might take a crack at replacing {fmt} as well. Cool stuff! Thank you.

[1] https://vitaut.net/posts/2024/faster-cpp-compile-times/

[2] https://godbolt.org/z/3YaovhrjP bench-fmt.cpp

[3] https://godbolt.org/z/qMfM39P3q bench-rikifmt.cpp

  char buffer[64];
  String_Buffer buf = {str, sizeof str};

  char buffer[64];

I was curious about the "Why not printf" section, but I found code I don't understand there, too. For example this admittedly non-working snippet is cited as idiomatic:

  char str[4] = {0};
  int cursor = 0;
  cursor += snprintf(str, sizeof str, "hello ");
  cursor += snprintf(str, sizeof str, "world!");

For localization you might want numbered holes which makes it way more complicated.

You can detect if the backing buffer is too short, but can you detect other errors? Like having different numbers of holes and arguments? I couldn’t find any discussion about this.

$"i={i}"

One issue that I had is that printing floating-point values really needs the ability for the user to specify the precision and format. It's actually absurd that `std::to_string(double)` does not allow this.

Also, I believe `std::to_chars(double)` uses a fast algorithm and allows writing directly into a buffer.