Microsoft - The <b>Evil</b> empire Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Microsoft - The Evil empire

MSFT 492.01

+1.3%

Nov 28 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Kashish King who wrote (357)	12/1/1997 11:45:00 AM
From: Robert Winchell	Read Replies (1) of 1600

Rod - I understand that you think you have more COM experience than me. You don't. I've been developing with OLE since 1.0 and with Windows since 2.0. Believe me, I understand. I certainly appreciate you telling me your background, so I can communicate better. MS has not done they could with COM, I agree. COM functionality was added to VB in v4, because they thought it was the best way to get it to people. C++ support was lacking until very recently, and their COM+ technology will simplify things for C++ and for C programmers. it's impossible to pass objects between functions because there is no definition for that What do you mean by that? I assume you mean pass structures, because you can certainly pass objects. Robert, let me say that I honestly don't believe you really appreciate the fact that COM is really Microsoft's component architecture for Visual Basic I guess I don't appreciate that because it isn't true. I don't think COMs design had anything to do with VB, other than possibly the use of similar simple types. Are you getting ActiveX and COM confused?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next