On 10/29/2010 08:24 PM, Pieter Hintjens wrote: > The words don't mean much except as placeholders. They could be > images, it'd work just as well (and perhaps we'll use images in the > future). > Ha. That's what I was heading for. You've stolen my point :) > The better is the enemy of the good. Let's focus on what _actually_ > makes life hard for users, which is: > > * lack of a formal 2.1.0 release (even unstable) > Ok. Let's do that. I'll do one small change tomorrow and we are ready to go. I am not aware of any showstopper bugs. > * too many steps to get a 0MQ + language binding working > * only one language apart from C/C++ properly documented for these > steps (Python) > * documentation spread out all over the place > * no consistent overview of what 0MQ projects exist and who to contact for > them > * not enough worked examples in different languages > * lack of useful and reusable layers above 0MQ > It's up to community to do this. No way to speed it up unless you do it yourself.
Martin _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
