That's the one criticism I found valid. I even called it one of the "Four Horsemen of Poor Performance" in a pretty widely read article I wrote on server performance back in 2002. On the other hand, over-reliance on static allocation means allocating many arrays/pools for the worst case, even when they couldn't possibly all hit worst case at the same time, and that can be a pretty bad choice on a highly memory-constrained device. (Doing it for the sake of real-time predictability is actually a different issue.)
OTOH complaining about not using templates because of performance seems exactly backwards, and complaining that it's not likely the the project sponsor will port already-open-source code to a competing architecture themselves seems a bit too entitled. When I see a list of negatives that are mostly bogus, and no mention of positives at all, it's a strong indicator of NIH syndrome.
Over complicating the build system is a reason for dropping almost anything but especially this. The whole point of a framework like that is to make things easier.