You are confusing the library with the available bindings. There are libzmq bindings available in C, C++, Ruby, Python, Scheme, Perl and probably 20 more languages. Use the one that is the best fit for you and your problem space. There is no performance difference between the C and C++ bindings.
The library is written in C++. That has not changed from 2.x to 3.x. Martin Sustrik is working on a new library called nanomsg that he is writing in C. That is a different library. cr On Jun 17, 2013, at 2:13 PM, Shaukat Mahmood Ahmad <[email protected]> wrote: > zeroMQ version 3.2.3 is shipped with zmq.h (pure c implementation), > however the older version (2.2.2) does contain zmq.hpp (C++ Version). > So I am curious to know about recommendation is zeroMQ 3.2.3 is > recomended with C only. I was reading > artcilehttp://www.250bpm.com/blog:4 (Why should I have written ZeroMQ > in C, not C++ Martin Sústrik, May 10th, 2012) I guess at that time the > zeroMQ version was 2.2.2 and the next version was written in pure C? > Most of examples under current documentation are also written in pure > C, however at github zmq.hpp is also available so what is best option > to write applications using zeroMQ C or C++? is it just matter of > choice and expertise or will there be some performance hit with C++? > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
