Boost logo

Boost :

From: Bennett, Patrick (Patrick.Bennett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-24 17:28:43

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Steven Burns
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 5:18 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> 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

So what again does this all have to do with Boost? (not that I'm
helping by replying to this thread)

Patrick Bennett

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at