On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, "Donal" wrote:

. . . an in-mast furling main sail . . .

. . . which, comparatively speaking, might be used more of the time
than one that requires more work to hoist and take down, . . .

. . . will usually be considerably smaller
than a standard sail, due to the lack of roach.

As a general matter, this is often true (but compare some
vertically-battened moderen in-mast furling mains).

But even when correct, it disregards the reality (especially for newer
computer-assisted designs) that modern hull shapes and (newer) boat
design/fabrication also frequently favors comparatively early reefing
but at no loss of sailing performance.

In other words, at many windspeeds and related weather conditions,
the,
"Is 'performance' always 'better'?"
question is often almost wholly (and, in some cases, entirely) moot.

Relatedly, HOWEVER, I most certainly am NOT arguing that This compared
with That sail is always "better" (much less "best") for all persons
on all boats ("cruising" or otherwise) in all conditions (or vice
versa). As in all else in sailing, its an "it depends ..." and "there
always are trade-offs" kind of Thing (re. which, f'rinstance, the
original posting in this thread does not specify whether the boat in
question will have a shoal or finned-compared-with-bulbed or mid-size
or deep keel, among other performance-affecting variables).