What I fail to understand is why you cite lack of transaction support in my redis client as a reason to reinvent the wheel.
Transaction support (really, macros) is on my to-do list. Why not fork the project on GitHub, patch it to support MULTI/EXEC/DISCARD, and send me a pull request instead of being passive aggressive?
I have been quite responsive to issues raised on GitHub, but maybe a bit less lately as I have a new baby daughter distracting me from coding (happily!).
I came away with the impression that the focus was on trying something new in order to learn and that a lack of transactions in existing libs was merely the excuse to experiment. There is still the performance issue with his approach, which I am investigating out of curiosity, so I wouldn't worry about it replacing yours.
It's hard not to take criticism personally but there will always be people who think you code is shit and approach all wrong.
BTW - I'm still running a patched version of the latest redis-client in production. Any thoughts about the patch to fix the internal buffer length calculations (changing "Math.max(currentLength * 2, atLeast * 1.1);" to "Math.max(currentLength * 2, offset + atLeast * 1.1);")?
Yeah, I saw this in my fork queue, among other things. I will try to get to them soon! Sorry!
"It's hard not to take criticism personally but there will always be people who think you code is shit and approach all wrong."
Indeed, I completely suck at taking such in stride!
