-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Steven Burns Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 5:18 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Ace??? (was: ANN: POCO - C++ Portable Components)

POCO's documentation is fine, sometimes a method could deserve more explanation but it's still fine given the fact most of the classes are very intuitive. Boost documentation is usually excellent, which is mandatory because some classes are not intuitive at first sight. ACE's website is simply unfriendly and looks careless.

Poco's documentation is 'ok', but the fact that the comments for all methods are *below* the method declarations is a style disaster. Virtually no documentation or tagging tool will work with it. Its online documentation doesn't hotlink from parameter types, doesn't graphically show the relationships, doesn't show what implements and uses each method, etc. etc. Basically, things Doxygen does - which will never work with Poco's code. :( As for ACE, I fail to see what the web site for a library has to do with the quality of library itself. By that token, I guess no one should use GCC or many of the gnu tools for that matter. It also has several books available for it. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. Doxygen documentation for it is also generated nightly and is available at http://www.dre.vanderbilt.edu/Doxygen/ So what again does this all have to do with Boost? (not that I'm helping by replying to this thread) Patrick Bennett