News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on ZeroMQ 4.2.0. Parent comment

Re:ZeroMQ 4.2.0 by omginternets on Friday November 04, 2016 @10:43AM (#12872920)
Right, but my point was rather about the differences you mention. I was under the impression that 0MQ was superceded by nanomsg for technical reasons (UNIX-iness, 0MQ's threading model, etc).

Whence comes the impression that nanomsg is inactive?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:ZeroMQ 4.2.0 by rubber_duck on Friday November 04, 2016 @10:55AM (#12873045)
>Whence comes the impression that nanomsg is inactive?

Because two 'main' maintainers so far abandoned it quite publicly, maybe someone picked it up afterwards.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:ZeroMQ 4.2.0 by widdma on Friday November 04, 2016 @03:01PM (#12875010)
Garrett D'Amore, who was previously a maintainer and is also the maintainer of mangos, returned in April on the condition he be BDFL.

See: https://github.com/nanomsg/nanomsg/issues/619

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:ZeroMQ 4.2.0 by qwertyuiop924 on Friday November 04, 2016 @05:34PM (#12876345)
last commit 9 days ago: It's active.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:ZeroMQ 4.2.0 by omginternets on Friday November 04, 2016 @02:25PM (#12874745)
Ah, I missed it.

The mangos project seems to be alive and well, in any case.

[ Parent | on HN ]