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: Kashish King who wrote (360)	12/1/1997 1:03:00 PM
From: Robert Winchell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1600

Rod - I agree with the fact that COM is complicated. Would I like to write pure C++ objects that can be used across processes and machines, and by different langauges without the COM layer? Of course, who wouldn't? 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. Agreed. Unless you need what COM provides, there is no reason to use it, obviously. The fact is, COM provides what I consider to be a powerful integration mechanism. Look at the Windows shell and the extensions that are possible. Is it "pretty"? No, but there isn't a pretty way to do a lot of things. I agree JavaBeans provide a much cleaner object model. No doubt. But it also lacks a lot of abilities that COM has. COM takes a long time to learn, adds a lot of complexity to code, but also gives you a lot of capabilities that are otherwise not avaialable.