I couldn't agree more! I just wanted to know what the performance curves on these "powerful and flexible" tools actually are because I've been burned by people that brought such tools into the shop.

Although performance certainly isn't the only consideration in the proper evaluation of any tool, it becomes a major negative consideration when the sophisticated tool gets beat 45 to 1 by the simple and much less elegant native tool. Would YOU knowingly use a tool for a simple task if you knew it was going to be 45 times slower than another method? I would hope not.

The other part of the problem is that if that tool is so slow on such a simple task, people really want to know what it's going to do on a more complex task where that "Powerful and Flexible tool" is supposed to really show it's stuff. Because there isn't much performance testing available on these tools (never mind any comparative testing), this thread looks like we've been introduced to a tool that's guaranteed to be 45 times slower according to the bit of testing done on this thread. That's a LOT slower in anyone's book and all other beneficial claims will not withstand that major shortcoming in most people's eyes.