I agree with @Hugo that ROS2 must get the "default values" right so that only people with very special needs should care about learning this, not the 90% of us that is happy with the one-fits-all configuration.
I __trust__ that people developing ROS2 share the same vision, i.e. simplicity first, fine tuning for those who care.
Probably ROS2 is "not there yet" in terms of simplicity, but I hope it will.
Similarly, I agree with @jbohren that unless you know the needs of your stakeholders, you can't have a clear roadmap.
So we all agree and everyone is happy...
Buuuuuuut, I believe that OSRF __has been__ sufficiently transparent about its vision.
And bear in mind that I am not one of "those" ROS evangelists that worship ROS :stuck_out_tongue:
My last words in this thread (I don't believe that I have anything else constructive to add) is that, in my __personal__ opinion, a world where ROS2 takes the place of ROS1 and they __do not__ coexist more than it is strictly necessary, will be a better world. I doubt I will see this anytime soon, though.
I want to believe that one day ROS2 will be as beginner friendly as ROS1, but it will take time and resources (including economic resources).
Cheers
Davide
---
[Visit Topic](
https://discourse.ros.org/t/discussion-on-ros-to-ros2-transition-plan/6155/86) or reply to this email to respond.
If you do not want to receive messages from ros-users please use the unsubscribe link below. If you use the one above, you will stop all of ros-users from receiving updates.
______________________________________________________________________________
ros-users mailing list
ros-users@lists.ros.org
http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
Unsubscribe: <
http://lists.ros.org/mailman//options/ros-users>
(text/plain)