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 (8259)	12/28/1997 11:31:00 PM
From: Kashish King	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10836

It's unfortunate that Microsoft's own defensive and apologetic writings on the decade-old abortion they call COM aren't as upbeat as yours; but then, they actually realize what a pile it is and have been trying to correct that mess as long as anybody cares to remember. The only argument is with Microsoft and those foolish enough to swallow whatever the company feeds them. There's nobody defending COM as an alternative to C++. The IDispatch (which is what I think you meant when you said IFace) may not be a requirement with VB 5.0 but who cares? I am not using VB 5.0 and I don't plan on it either. What you get with MFC are IDispatch interfaces as do ActiveX controls. C++ is not open for debate, that was settled 10 years ago. The question is how a C++ object might expose an interface at runtime. The nonsense is the assumption that C++ member calls have to go through a vtable. The real nonsense is writing software with COM interfaces instead of object-oriented C++ classes that allow you to pass objects, return objects, extend objects and so on. Now, if all you have is a bunch of dumb-ass forms (DAF) then why not use Visual Basic? I will use COM if I need it, C++ when I don't, and Java when starting fresh on my next project now that it has matured.