Disappointment not with the translation, which was easy to read along with a careful introduction and footnotes, but with the content. Some of Rufus's arguments didn't make a lot of sense, compared with the rigor of Epictetus or even Marcus Aurelius (the latter shared the informal tone of this book).
For example, one lecture makes the perfectly good point that if a person is willing to suffer to achieve something harmful or empty - such as wealth, adultery, celebrity, or intoxication - then surely we should be willing to sacrifice to achieve virtue and live the right kind of life. So far so good. Stoicism is all about valuing or shunning things based on their real value, not on how popular they are. But then in later lectures, he appeals to social conventions and common behavior to justify his positions. e.g. When asked if it's good to have a large family, he says yes, because who doesn't love to see a mom and dad walking through town with their gaggle of children? Doesn't everyone in town esteem them for having kids? Now, it might really be good to have a large family; and of course it's true that people smile when they see big families; but what kind of stoic reasoning is that? Social convention also esteems fancy clothes, physical beauty, money, and popular dictators - but no stoic (including Rufus) would endorse those.
The strength and weakness of Rufus's lectures is that they deal with everyday topics in an everyday manner. His advice might be good, but it's too easy to see the holes in his arguments.