[virgilp]

Well, my original message was a bit snarky, but what I meant was that, at the very least, this project advertises the wrong features. I mean come on, "lightweight" and "high-performance"? Maybe advertise safety properties, resilience, I don't know... but the way it is built, it can't possibly distinguish itself on the "high performance" front. As for "lightweight".... you can use ZMQ for intra-process communication. That's lightweight - not using an external RDBMS.

I'm not saying this project is bad - I have no way of knowing. It might have legitimate usecases where it excels. But what it advertises can't be true.

[jerf]

"Lightweight" is really becoming a turnoff for me when people use it in their description. It (mostly) means "I haven't worked on this long enough to add the features all the other projects in this space immediately found were too useful to go without" or even "I haven't worked on this long enough to produce much code".

"Lightweight" is really only interesting to me in two cases: First, you're designing it for limited resources, like an embedded system, for which the standard answer is simple too large to even consider. Second, when the standard answer in the field is so "heavy" (an ill-defined term itself, but moving on) that it causes problems of its own. JVM solutions sometimes get to this point, where the act of administering the solution itself gets bogged down in merely administering the JVM.

I do not personally have the problem that my job queues are too heavy, nor have I heard anyone else complain that ZMQ or Redis are just so heavy for what they do.