RIRickHull·Feb 19, 2017
In BSD socket API revampnanomsg
mangos-v1
Go2015–2017
nanomsg / mangos-v1 · Archived
mangos-v1
The pure golang implementation of nanomsg (version 1, frozen)
6Distinct people
8Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
1.5KGitHub stars
What to know before exploring
What it is
The pure golang implementation of nanomsg (version 1, frozen)
GitHub
Where it is used
No documented product use has been verified yet.
What people are saying
No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.
No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.
Also in these discussions
No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.
This week on Hacker News
Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 5:04:57 PM UTC.
No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.
Mentions over time
HN mentions by month8 dated mentions
Observed mentions: 2015-01-11 14:21:04 UTC to 2017-02-19 06:06:47 UTC.
Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.
View mention counts and date ranges
| Period | Start (UTC) | End (exclusive, UTC) | Mentions | Submissions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 2015 | 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-02-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Feb 2015 | 2015-02-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-03-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2015 | 2015-03-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-04-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Apr 2015 | 2015-04-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-05-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| May 2015 | 2015-05-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-06-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Jun 2015 | 2015-06-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-07-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jul 2015 | 2015-07-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Aug 2015 | 2015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2015 | 2015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oct 2015 | 2015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Nov 2015 | 2015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dec 2015 | 2015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jan 2016 | 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Feb 2016 | 2016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2016 | 2016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2016-04-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Apr 2016 | 2016-04-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| May 2016 | 2016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2016-06-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 2016 | 2016-06-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2016-07-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jul 2016 | 2016-07-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2016-08-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Aug 2016 | 2016-08-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2016-09-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2016 | 2016-09-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2016-10-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oct 2016 | 2016-10-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2016-11-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nov 2016 | 2016-11-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2016-12-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Dec 2016 | 2016-12-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jan 2017 | 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Feb 2017 | 2017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2 | 0 | 2 |
What Hacker News says
8 sourcesOn the one hand this seems like a strange decision given that Go purposefully avoids asynchronous code. On the other hand, I think this project is trying to get at something that is (IMHO) a blind-spot for the Go community. Namely: I find it difficult to design abstract data-flow patterns and encapsulate behind a nice API.
Go is great for dealing with the nitty-gritty of concurrency, but I find it hard to express a high-level vision of what's going on in my app/lib. This is why this project almost feels good. There's a clear view of what we're manipulating and how we're positioned relative to the data.
Has anybody else struggled with this?
The closest thing I've found to a solution has been go-mangos[0], a native go implementation of the scalable protocols. This is extremely useful for designing the data-flow of an application when
Read the rest
I'm shuffling bytes around, but what I find myself wanting is an equivalent system for raw (i.e.: unserialized) Go data-structures.
I want to be able to do something like this (assume a hypothetical library to this effect called `portal`):
p0, _ := portal.NewPortal(iface, portal.REP) // iface is a types.Interface
p0.Bind("foo")
p1, _ := portal.NewPortal(iface, portal.REP)
p1.Dial("foo")
go func() {
for {
i, _ := p0.Recv() // `i` guaranteed to satisfy the interface represented by `iface`
i.DoSomething()
p0.Send(i)
}
}()
p1.Send(iRequest)
iResult, _ := p1.Recv()
I'm very curious to get some feedback on this idea. It's been gnawing away at my brain for a while now.
[0] https://github.com/go-mangos/mangos
I'm confused. I thought 0MQ had essentially been superceded by nanomsg [0]. What's the deal?
On a related note, using nnpy [1] and mangos [0] have been a real pleasure.
And lastly, a bit of info on how 0MQ and nanomsg differ [3].
[0] http://nanomsg.org/
[1] https://github.com/nanomsg/nnpy
[2] https://github.com/go-mangos/mangos
[3] http://nanomsg.org/documentation-zeromq.html
In ZeroMQ 4.2.0Would be interesting to also look at Mangos, a Go reimplementation of the nanomsg protocol.
https://github.com/gdamore/mangos
In Iris Decentralized Cloud MessagingI'm not familiar with disruptor, but if you want an alternative to buffered channels maybe mangos[0] would interest you, it supports inproc and IPC among other transports.
[0] https://github.com/gdamore/mangos
In Go 1.5 BetaSmall correction: There is a pure Go implementation of nanomsg (https://github.com/gdamore/mangos).
In ØMQ - The GuideMangos – An implementation in pure Go of the Scalable Protocols
46 points · Open discussionPure Go Implementation of Nanomsg's Scalability Protocols
2 points · Open discussion