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 : Microsoft - The Evil empire -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert Winchell who wrote (359)	12/1/1997 12:19:00 PM
From: Kashish King	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1600

We don't need to wait for the next coat of OLE paint, it's about 5 years too late. AFA passing objects and structures, even passing arrays forces you to use their klunky, alien data types. Give me C or C++ and don't force me to write to their home-brewed mess, that's all I am saying. So much for their transparent, language-independent architecture, and it's no surprise that the native COM types are the native VB types, as I am sure you know. Now on to objects, it's simply not possible to use C++ objects across a COM interface unless you're using C++ on both sides at which point you might want to stick with extension DLL's and be done with this COM nonsense. Look at the problem that COM supposedly solves and consider how much information the author of a C++ class really needs to provide; then look at the nightmare they created. It isn't surprising that COM books and articles are generally defensive and extremely apologetic, the whole design is a disaster and Microsoft knows it. Sorry, there isn't anything good to say about COM even after a decade of evolution. It's patch after patch after hack after rewrite and it's not happening. What's the latest hack: cross-my-heart security, scout's honor resource management? Give me a break, COM is an unabashed disaster.