On Feb 8, 2012, at 6:27 PM, john skaller wrote: > > On 09/02/2012, at 7:43 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Dave Duchene <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Why not add JSON and XML serialization for messages while we're at it? Why >>> not have a configuration language for describing socket pairs? Because it >>> complicates the library, and isn't needed for most applications. And *most >>> importantly*, because the users of the library aren't asking for it. >> >> This is my opinion too, that change should be driven by demand, not >> philosophy. > > I do not entirely agree with that. The reason is: users have experience but > no real > foresight. Only people with experience with competing packages or > theoreticians > can have foresight. Users get stuck in tiny incremental changes, they get > used to > doing things "the One Way (TM)" and have little understanding of alternate > over-views. > > Consider for example my own experience on the ISO C++ committee.
Oh no. If you are in any way responsible for the abortion that is C++ we shouldn't let you anywhere near a computer for the remainder of your life let alone libzmq. :P (only kind of kidding) cr _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
