This might sound irrelevant and it probably is, but I like the fact that POCO's classes are named thinks like BinaryWriter and DirectoryIterator instead of b_wtr and dir_itr and so on. The corresponding methods have also descriptive self-documenting names. Something else, I downloaded the library, ran the build scripts and it worked, seamlessly, the very first time. This is not as common as some may think. Steven "Sohail Somani" <s.somani@fincad.com> wrote in message news:1C1EBEF8DBACDC439D038EA051674EC735BCE9@xbox.financialcad.com...
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Steven Burns Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 9:30 AM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] ANN: POCO - C++ Portable Components
Even though I have used boost libraries for a while, this was the first time I read about ACE and POCO.
I've used Java's and C#'s libraries for years wishing something similar existed for C++ and POCO seems to be a step in this direction.
Regarding ACE, I haven't read that much. The site kept me jumping from page to page and it looked kind of "academic" if you ask me.
Yeah we've been looking at POCO since it was mentioned here, and it really does look very good compared to ACE. I think if you wanted more of a framework, you might go with ACE. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost