Re: OFFTOPIC: common C++ v ACE

[David Sugar]

I think ACE also has a different design philosophy.  We strived for simplicity 
and portability, and to do so in a way that allows targets to be created that 
are optimal on each target platform.  We do not create libraries or 
functionality that exists elsewhere, and try to resuse core functionality to 
expand upon the areas not addressed by the ANSI C++ specs (such as threads, 
sockets, etc), rather than trying to create a framework that has classes that 
displace or supercede already existing standard libraries (hence, there is no 
GNU Common C++ string class, for example).  It has been a long time since I 
looked at ACE (several years) since I have used Common C++ in all my own 
projects.  I think there were more people, especially from universities, 
working on ACE than are involved in Common C++, but I think while we have 
fewer contributors (about two dozen over time), we generally have 
contributors that are more representative of the actual C++ commercial 
programming community.

Is ACE buggy or not at present?  This I do not know.  Do they have the same 
functionality?  Since I had not looked at ACE in years, I could not answer 
this, although at the beginning, they had some functionality in common 
(threads for example), while there are things uniquely GNU Common C++ (the 
persistance system and keydata, for example).

On Tuesday 15 July 2003 12:33 pm, Mihalis I. Tsoukalos wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 06:04:29AM -0400, David Sugar wrote:
> > I will comment only this far on this question; when Common C++ was still
> > "APE", a lot of design decisions were made to make sure the library would
> > be very small and modular, simply because at the time ACE was not and
> > involved huge image overhead and I felt unessisary complexity to use.  If
> > ACE had been appreciably smaller and more modular, it's likely APE would
> > never have been written at that time nor Common C++ created later from
> > it.
> >
> > On Monday 14 July 2003 04:34 pm, Mihalis I. Tsoukalos wrote:
> > > Dear list,
> > > I would like to ask your opinion about Common C++ and ACE.
> > > Which one is better now?
> > > Do they have the same functionality?
> > >
> > > TIA,
> > > Mihalis.
>
> So, are you suggesting that I better use Common C++ for
> network programming because of the complexity of ACE?
>
> What about bugs in those libraries?
> What about active developers on each project? Which one is more
> active?
> Any other comments?
>
> TIA,
> Mihalis.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-commoncpp mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-commoncpp