Re: [Boost-users] Off topic: Interface / design question

From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-29 02:12:16

Nikolai N Fetissov wrote:

>>
>> Background:
>> I am/was planning to profile the thread libraries from boost and ACE.
>> During this experiment, I wish we had an interface class defined for
>> threads. Also, I wish boost and ACE had implemented those interface
>> classes. It would have helped someone like me profile different C++
>> libraries with ease.
>>
>> I was going through the header files of boost and I don't see a
>> interface classes being used. I am trying to understand was there a
>> conscientious decision made to not define them. I am trying to
>> understand the reason behind those decisions. It will help newbie's like
>> me to understand C++ better and write better code.
> 
> Amit,
> 
> ACE and Boost are unrelated projects, and there's no universal
> thread "interface" to implement. This doesn't mean you can't
> design thin wrappers yourself for your experiment.
> Honest advise though - do not use ACE, even if you find it faster,
> which I very much doubt. Boost is a set of modern C++ libraries,
> pushing its way into standard C++, and developed by world experts;
> while ACE is dated, ugly, monolithic monster that forces you into
> wrong design choices.

<rant>
Presumably, you:

1. Have your CV somewhere online, that lists some serious projects
done with both ACE and Boost.

2. Have a blog post or article that specifically names the 
"wrong design choices" that ACE forces one into?

If so, can you provide links to those?
</rant>

I *don't* have direct experience with ACE, so I'm not going to defend it
here, and I also assume you have good reasons to criticise ACE, but your
email does not communicate them well. Calling a established project a 
"ugly, monolithic monster" without good justification written down does
not seem a constructive, or fair, thing. Especially given that Boost is 
fairly monolithic and fairly big, too. 

- Volodya