

Why I won't be switching to Disque - Sami_Lehtinen
http://charlesleifer.com/blog/why-i-won-t-be-switching-to-disque/

======
antirez
This article in my opinion missed a few key points: Redis is not different
than Disque, I don't use Redis since basically the _start_ of the project for
any serious thing, since Redis took over my other occupations in a matter of
months. I believe I did a reasonable job in still creating the right
abstractions for the users, even not being myself a direct user of Redis. Just
two examples: Lua scripting and sorted sets, among the top Redis used
features, where both conceived while I was no longer using the system first
hand.

I think I can repeat the same with Disque, since I'm not an user, but the
design is an effect of what _users experience and complain_ about Redis as a
message queue.

Moreover both for Redis and for Disque in the future I'll be working more with
people having large deployments and use cases in order to get more feedbacks
about what could be useful things to add.

I don't want to sound immodest, but the rule that you have to be an actual
user of the software to create something decent does not necessarily applies
to anyone, there are people that can synthesize the needs and design APIs
without actually implementing anything serious. However note that don't
implement anything _serious_ does not mean don't implement anything at all. I
created several "toy projects" using Redis over the years, and I'm doing the
same with Disque.

~~~
coleifer
Hi, I'm the author of this post. First of all thank you for responding to my
comments, I'm humbled that you took the time and I apologize if you felt
compelled to defend your work.

I was in part responding to the comment in the "Limitations" section of the
README about how Disque was developed in "astronaut mode". Mostly, though, my
point was that I think many people use Redis as a queue because they want to
use Redis as a queue. Maybe it's already part of the stack, or they like the
simplicity, whatever.

I am a _huge_ fan of your work and hope to see Disque succeed, again apologies
if you felt I was attacking your project.

------
soveran
The author of the article declares his incompetence at building and
maintaining software projects for which he's not the target user, and thus
concludes the same applies to the creator of Redis and Disque. Based on that
he instills a lot of FUD around a project that has proven very useful for me
so far.

Also, from the article:

 _The other reason I don 't foresee using Disque is alluded to in the author's
own comments. He observes that many people are using Redis as a message
broker, and decides that maybe there is a need for a "Redis of messaging". I
would say the opposite is true, and that instead of another message server,
people want to use Redis!_

I disagree. I've been using Redis for queues for a very long time, and I'm in
the process of migrating all those queues to Disque.

------
fasteo
As much as I like Redis and Antirez, I have to completely agree with this
article.

I would just point out that Pivotal (current Redis sponsor) runs RabbitMQ; no
doubt that they have in-house knowledge about message brokers. No idea if they
are willing to put time into Disque.

First version of RabbitMQ was released in 2008 and there have been more that
50 releases so far[2]. No doubt that maintaining a product like this is a lot
of effort.

[1] [https://www.rabbitmq.com/](https://www.rabbitmq.com/)

[2] [https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-
server/releases](https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server/releases)

