| > I would suggest you don't make dramatic claims If you could point out some stuff from ZProc's page, that would be nice! > mpi is the grandfather of message passing libraries Never heard of it before, but just a simple google search reveals that it _might_ be more performant than zmq, but not as fault-tolerant and flexible. It really looks like a niche thing, from this comment by peter hintjens > Why smart cloud builders are betting everything on 0MQ. In detail, compare to the alternatives. Hand-rolling your own TCP stack is insane. Using any broker-based product won't scale. Buying licenses from IBM or TIBCO would eat up your capital. Supercomputing products like MPI aren't designed for this scale. There is literally no alternative. (http://zeromq.org/docs:the-ten-minute-talk) > Don't get me wrong, message-passing has some advantages, but they certainly aren't that it 'solves' parallelism. Doesn't it? (For most people) --- I can't believe I'm hearing words against zmq on HN, its wierd. Even the guys over at Dask settled on ZMQ over anything - https://github.com/dask/distributed/issues/776 P.S. Seems like you know quite a lot about this topic. Do you have any projects of your own that I can see? Bottom line, I think most people would be happy doing message passing parallelism in the real world. Sure, it doesn't look that good in theory but works damn good in practicality. |
...also, nanomsg is the 'improved' successor.
Also, MPI isn't a 'niche' thing, its the way that a large proportion of high-performance applications have been implemented for a few decades (think Crays & weather prediction). Zeromq has a few simple web-apps using it (I exagerate slightly).