Comparison of boost and ACE thread Libraries

I saw a comment on the Internet, which is quite pertinent.

 

Http://stackoverflow.com/questions/474840/boost-vs-ace-c-cross-platform-performance-comparison

 

Excerpted comments from several DUDE:

 

Do yourself a favor and steer clear of ACE. it's a horrible, horrible library that shoshould never have been written, if you ask me. I 've worked (or rather had to work with it) for 3 years and I tell you it's a poorly designed, poorly incluented, poorly implemented piece of junk using archaic C ++ and built on completely brain-dead design decisions... calling ace "C with classes" is actually doing it a favor. if you look into the internal implementations of some of its constructs you'll often have a hard time suppressing your gag reflex. also, I can't stress the "poor documentation" aspect enough. usually, Ace's notion of documenting a function consists of simply printing the function's signature. as to the meaning of its arguments, its return value and its general behavior, well you're usually left to figure that out on your own. i'm sick and tired of having to guess which exceptions a function may throw, which return value denotes success, which arguments I have to pass to make the function do what I need it to do or whether a function/class is thread-safe or not.

Boost on the other hand, is simple to use, modern c ++, extremely well known ented, And it just works! Boost is the way to go, down with Ace!

 

I 've used Ace for numerous heavy duty production servers. it never failed me. it is rock solid and do the work for policyears now. tried to learn boost's ASIO network framework-couldn't get the hang of it. while boost is more "modern" C ++, it also harder to use for non trivial tasks-and without a "modern" C ++ experience and deep STL knowledge it is difficult to use correctly

 

Del. icio. us tags: boost
, Ace
, C ++
, Network Programming