3 ms·

I personally like the fact that the codebase (up until a few months ago at least, when I last looked) is very clean and very understandable. This probably has

by aktau 13y ago

I personally like the fact that the codebase (up until a few months ago at least, when I last looked) is very clean and very understandable. This probably has to do with both the transition from C++ to C, and the fact that Martin (the author) has a better idea of what he wants to make. In other words, he is (painfully) aware of the errors he made in his ZeroMQ and is doing it right from the first time in nanomsg. This leads to clearer and more consise code. The reduction of strange bugs and perhaps better performance adds a lot of icing on the cake as well. I look forward to using nanomsg in my future projects! EDIT: github link, https://github.com/250bpm/nanomsg https://github.com/250bpm/nanomsg

malkia 13y ago
I've been totally conversed back to "C" from "C++" after working on a port of Metal Gear Solid to PC in 2000. I've had no problems understanding and reading through the code the Konami developers have written, it was using some kind of generic OO system in "C" with TCL-like passing of arguments (object* obj, int argc, const char*argv[]) - and passing text messages. Yes that was okay even on Playstation1 I guess. Now I still prefer C++ at work for certain things as I'm simply too lazy to do it correctly in "C" - give me STL, Qt, any UI framework written in there, and it's easier to use. But for core/system libraries (zlib, png, jpeg, tiff, zmq, libpq, etc.) I'd rather have it in "C", at least on the interface part, but I've seen what hiding of C++ or .NET can do with a crazy debugger :)