zlacker

(Not with the company) My observation is that ROS 2 is the go-to solution for new projects. Established co's have sunk cost in proprietary stacks and tend to spread the "ROS is slow and bulky" meme, but the reality is a sane, seasoned stack that has thousands of contributors offers a time-to-market advantage that is worth more than saving a bit on hardware. Most of the really time-critical code (actuator firmware, video capture etc) is done by C/C++ libraries anyway.

It's parallel to the general situation where Python is at the top of the stack in spite of being dog-ass slow.

>>danbmi+(OP)
ROS2 is also not ROS. I believe they fixed some of the mistakes. I'm not sure about catkin though, it's the worst build system I've experienced. And it sure likes to integrate itself everywhere, making it really hard to move away from it.

>>carlmr+U01
The only big change which isn't just churn is changing the messaging system to DDS. My problems with ROS1 aren't related to the implementation details of the messaging system. It's the build system, the difficulty of adding tests, the difficulty of writing deterministic systems with their messages being inserted in the middle of everything, needing to put everything through their messages, and in the end the fact that I can't use ROS for a system and non-ROS for another system and have them work together nicely.

>>snovv_+dk1
Couldn't have put it better.

ROS metastasizes in your system.

I'm anti-framework in general though. I think it's better to get a good build system and a good messaging library and do your own stuff.