Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : BORL: Time to BUY! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David R who wrote (7540)	11/19/1997 10:15:00 AM
From: Kashish King	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Here's the problem I have with your COM is great comments. Although it's technically possible, it's not economically practical to create COM classes that can deliver anything but the weakest form of software reuse. Can you build a COM class in C++ and then derive more specialized classes from it? Not with out spending a lot of time and performing a lot of code gymnastics. It's just not designed for inheritence and it's taken them a decade to make it usable at all. Now, if you are creating ActiveX controls and deriving specialized versions I would like to know about that, it just isn't practical. The other major problem is that you cannot pass objects between objects because you must maintain compatibility with Visual Basic and other would-be COM languages. You are taking a giant leap backward with COM in that respect. Unless you are telling me that you are using COM objects like remote C++ objects and I know that's impossible. <INSERT LANGUAGE OF CHOICE, I MEAN VISUAL BASIC. Sorry, but I want an object-oriented system not a decade old hack from some of the worst software designers in the known universe. There's no way this can be defended. Why is it that in 1997 we don't have spelling checkers or thesauri in the operating system? Why don't we have an INPUT BOX that can even do right justification or realtime filtering of input? Microsoft believes it can keep the lion's share of developments for its own applications and that, in any event, it doesn't need to use an OO approach since VB doesn't support that anyway.

To: David R who wrote (7540)	11/19/1997 10:34:00 AM
From: Kashish King	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Here's what to do, it's simple. C was the lingua franca of software development and every other language supported calls to C libraries and DLLs. The DLL interface provided the runtime, binary interface. Now OOP comes along and C++ becomes the lingua franca of software development. Countless companies, however, fail to deliver an interactive GUI builder to make Windows programming easy in C++ and that is itself based in C++. [We don't need to here any glowing reports about products that claim to have achieved that because I will guarantee that any such system would be in use today if it stood up to field testing and did not create more problems than it solved. We aren't using such a product, therefore it does not exist in a marketable form.] In failing to deliver an elegant solution for that, VB and VB-like products take off. Primarily because a large fraction of enterprise software is form based. C++ continues to dominate for software tasks which are not primarily form-based. The solution was: Use C++ to build components for a Windows runtime based on these C++ objects and expose interfaces using something which was there already: the C language interface provided by virtually every other language. There is only one reason we don't have this: the myopic hacker mentality of Microsoft combined with sales of Visual Basic. The solution is: JAVA