Err, if you read Stroustrup's Design & Evolution of C++, performance clearly was one of the primary design goals. Goals 2 and 3 in the statement you linked to spell that out. If a feature could not be implemented without effecting the efficiency of programs that did not use it, the feature was rejected. One of the points that Stroustrup stresses in D&E is that he wanted no languages below C++.
There are many features that do have a runtime or space cost, but you only pay for it if you use it. And I think that in many cases, what you end up implementing yourself would pay the same performance costs, if not more.
Re:Why I No Longer Like or Use C++
by huhtenberg on Thursday March 13, 2008 @12:22AM
(#135734)
You didn't quite follow what I said or I phrased it badly. C++ performance requirements are inherited from "be like C" requirement. So when the guy says that he's going back to C, because C++ is "all about performance and not usability", it just does not make any sense.
The guy also claims that "every single aspect of C++ being designed around higher performance instead of my productivity". This is false. The fact that it allows writing high-performance code does not mean it was one of the primary design goals. It simply was not, this aspect of the language was inherited from C .. which is one of the languages the author declares to be "going back" to. Kind of ironic if you think about it.
http://www.dmk.com/c++/stroustrup_1986_10.html