4 ms·

It's just that ZeroMQ had too many features and too much code. Wasn't ZeroMQ supposed to be the simple, lightweight alternative? I'm feeling better about my d

It's just that ZeroMQ had too many features and too much code. Wasn't ZeroMQ supposed to be the simple, lightweight alternative? I'm feeling better about my decision to ignore all the whole *MQ circus.

seiji 14y ago
Well, zeromq has nothing to do with amqp (rabbitmq as the prototypical example), so there's not much of a circus.
- cageface 14y ago
  People compare them all the time, including the ZeroMQ people themselves: http://www.zeromq.org/docs:welcome-from-amqp http://www.zeromq.org/docs:welcome-from-amqp
  - mratzloff 14y ago
    It's not really a useful comparison. You can use ZeroMQ to build a lightweight message queue, but if you really need a message queue it would be best to just use a full message queue. ZeroMQ is more of a message passing toolkit.
ralph 14y ago
Did you use something else instead or just decide not to design around message-queues at all?
- cageface 14y ago
  I switched to iOS development. ;)
- batista 14y ago
  Does he sound like the right person to ask about the matter? He wonders if "wasn't ZeroMQ supposed to be the lightweight alternative" --which means he never bothered to go read the source code or use to find out. Then he feels "validated" of not using any *mq stuff (besides, say ZeroMQ and RabbitMQ being totally different in scope and implementation), because he read a random comment in this very thread that reads more like a /. flame. Lastly, he doesn't even do much work (if any) with messaging. From his response below, it seems like he considered messaging options for some project, couldn't figure then out and/or didn't proceed with the project, and does non message-related iOS work now.
rumcajz 14y ago
Too much code? 0MQ ~15k LOC RabbitMQ ~107k LOC AMQP Qpid ~542k LOC ActiveMQ ~1160k LOC
- newobj 14y ago
  i'm sorry but comparing 0MQ to these other systems is caca doodoo. i'm telling you as a developer who has on multiple occasions considered using 0MQ it lowers my trust in you as an evangelist for the platform to suggest that this is a relevant or worthwhile comparison to make.
  - rumcajz 14y ago
    Consider my comment in the context. The comment I was replying to says that 0MQ/XS is not lightweight because it has too much code. That's simply not true and that's what I was alluding to.
- rdtsc 14y ago
  > 0MQ ~15k LOC RabbitMQ ~107k Might want to try this comparison again when 0MQ (or is it xroads?) supports clustering, high availability, durability, web management, federation, & STOMP.
newobj 14y ago
the only circus is the incorrect conflation of 0MQ with actual durable message queue systems.
batista 14y ago
>I'm feeling better about my decision to ignore all the whole MQ circus.* Yes, because a random, 1 paragraph (and content-less, at that) comment on a social media site is very good grounds for verifying your technical decision. (And referring to a series of projects as "circuses" without any deeper knowledge about them besides casual internet mentions, is also very mature).

seiji 14y ago

Well, zeromq has nothing to do with amqp (rabbitmq as the prototypical example), so there's not much of a circus.

cageface 14y ago
People compare them all the time, including the ZeroMQ people themselves: http://www.zeromq.org/docs:welcome-from-amqp http://www.zeromq.org/docs:welcome-from-amqp
- mratzloff 14y ago
  It's not really a useful comparison. You can use ZeroMQ to build a lightweight message queue, but if you really need a message queue it would be best to just use a full message queue. ZeroMQ is more of a message passing toolkit.

ralph 14y ago

Did you use something else instead or just decide not to design around message-queues at all?

cageface 14y ago
I switched to iOS development. ;)
batista 14y ago
Does he sound like the right person to ask about the matter? He wonders if "wasn't ZeroMQ supposed to be the lightweight alternative" --which means he never bothered to go read the source code or use to find out. Then he feels "validated" of not using any *mq stuff (besides, say ZeroMQ and RabbitMQ being totally different in scope and implementation), because he read a random comment in this very thread that reads more like a /. flame. Lastly, he doesn't even do much work (if any) with messaging. From his response below, it seems like he considered messaging options for some project, couldn't figure then out and/or didn't proceed with the project, and does non message-related iOS work now.

rumcajz 14y ago

Too much code? 0MQ ~15k LOC RabbitMQ ~107k LOC AMQP Qpid ~542k LOC ActiveMQ ~1160k LOC

newobj 14y ago
i'm sorry but comparing 0MQ to these other systems is caca doodoo. i'm telling you as a developer who has on multiple occasions considered using 0MQ it lowers my trust in you as an evangelist for the platform to suggest that this is a relevant or worthwhile comparison to make.
- rumcajz 14y ago
  Consider my comment in the context. The comment I was replying to says that 0MQ/XS is not lightweight because it has too much code. That's simply not true and that's what I was alluding to.
rdtsc 14y ago
> 0MQ ~15k LOC RabbitMQ ~107k Might want to try this comparison again when 0MQ (or is it xroads?) supports clustering, high availability, durability, web management, federation, & STOMP.

newobj 14y ago

the only circus is the incorrect conflation of 0MQ with actual durable message queue systems.

batista 14y ago

>I'm feeling better about my decision to ignore all the whole MQ circus.* Yes, because a random, 1 paragraph (and content-less, at that) comment on a social media site is very good grounds for verifying your technical decision. (And referring to a series of projects as "circuses" without any deeper knowledge about them besides casual internet mentions, is also very mature).