Did anyone deal with the Poco library? If so, what are the impressions, especially from the side of reliability and speed.

  • +1 Very interested in comparing with Qt ... - gecube

1 answer 1

There is one project in development and one developed on support where Poco is used as a framework. The impressions are generally positive, the library was developed in “labor OOP wei”, even “java wei” with moderate use of templates, therefore it does not require deep knowledge of C ++.

Speed ​​- as containers uses STL, but otherwise there are no places demanding for performance =)

Reliability - in general, the library is built on well-known patterns, because there are no architectural jambs. And if something goes wrong you can easily figure it out yourself. Of the minuses worth noting:

There are a lot of global static singleton objects in the library. Actually, there are a lot of problems with the order of their initialization, which is not known to be known. Because of this, UNEXPECTED errors occur (for familiarization, an incorrectly working logging sample). Developers know, but do nothing. It is treated with hand patches.

"Magical" Poco :: Net - it is not clear why 2 iterations on writing the transport tcp subsystem Unexpectedly refused to work. I will not go into the details, but in the end they refused to use it in favor of boost :: asio.

Of the benefits:

Powerful logging system.

NDC - allows you to remove the stack when exceptions a-la managed code.

High-level structures for multithreading.

In general, a good lightweight framework without GUI. Especially well in combination with MFC, which Poco can give a very noble look.

Poco use about 2 years, ask your answers.

  • Thank. Poco opened a couple of days ago during a search for a cross-platform way to launch external applications. And I was very surprised that such a wonderful library is so little known. - skegg
  • Can you consult the poco library? - vizavill