On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Chuck Remes <[email protected]> wrote:
> Again, I have no opinion. I'll allow others to voice theirs. I'm always happy to collect and voice opinions. First, we'd enjoy a lot less mention of Felix here, it feels like zeromq-dev has become the target of a Felix astroturfing campaign. Second, John, though your enthusiasm is welcome in its general addition of energy to the list, it is doubtless irritating to people who have spent the last years carefully optimizing and tuning this library. My strong advice is to stop suggesting improvements as though they were obvious. Read my blog on Complexity Oriented Design if you want to understand why your proposal to invent fifteen (or was it 35) new semantics for "message" is not helpful. Third, and again from the same blog, the only sane way to work in a large and complex project like libzmq (or indeed in a tiny new project) is by single iterative steps where each step fixes a well-known, clearly argued problem in a *minimal* fashion. So, in summary, let's cut the philosophy and focus on targeted *minimal* patches to solve identified problems. I repeat the word *minimal* for emphasis. If you are spending fifteen emails arguing a design, it isn't minimal. Cheers -Pieter _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
