Great. But I have been programming since about 1985.
For example, C++ on AMD64 is very likely to compile std::clamp<double> into 2 instructions, minsd and maxsd. I’m not so sure about nested ternaries mentioned elsewhere in the comments.
And if you don't already know that in your soul, I will appear to be a genuine crackpot, and the reasons not to use std::* will still exist.
But as a sibling commenter notes... this isn't relevant for min/max.
If it really is a bottleneck on a hot path then go for it. But not using it because of some ancient anecdotes is going to lead to an unmaintainable mess.
I’m aware some parts of C++ standard library are outright horrible, like iostream and I/O in general. Other parts are questionable, like date & time, locales, and futures.
Meanwhile, other parts of the same standard library are actually OK (most collections, threading, synchronization, atomics, smart pointers, initializer lists). And other parts are awesome, like most of the stuff from <algorithm> header.
Apparently, one of the C++ design goals was to not pay for features which aren’t used. Selectively ignoring stuff from the standard library doesn’t have much downsides.
It's actually the std::min/std::max version that goes to minsd/maxsd in both clang/gcc.
> Fout bij het maken van de databaseconnectie