Re: [boost] ANN: POCO - C++ Portable Components

From: Steven Burns (royalstream_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-22 10:38:05

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_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:1C1EBEF8DBACDC439D038EA051674EC735BCE9_at_xbox.financialcad.com...
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
>> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Steven Burns
>> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 9:30 AM
>> To: boost_at_[hidden]
>> 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
>