Actually that appears to be the author arguing that his program runs faster in part because it
avoids byte swapping on the native architecture, a trivial optimisation which he's managed to
manufacture into some C++ templates. In practice, looking at the sample code, templates seem
to deliver about the same maintainability as endian-swap macros, which is what an equivalent C
program (not the existing GNU ld) would use. I don't see a claim that it was actually /easier/
than macros, do you? Just that this optimisation is worth having, despite the complexity
compared to GNU ld.
Keep in mind I used to write my own programs in C++, and I stopped, so I'm not arguing from
ignorance or out of some misguided attempt to avoid learning something new. I made an explicit
choice to stop, and I think my choice was justified. At the time a lot of people told me it
was a mistake, but some of them have since stopped too.
But I don't want to waste my whole week arguing with language fanatics of any stripe. Code is
king, and anyway the main consumer for a faster linker is huge C++ programs, and this faster
linker is written in C++, so that should mean the people who care are already in a position to
look after it. Good luck, and if gold becomes the default please don't break the trivial cases
needed for linking my C programs.