Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=C3=B8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk>
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: BridgeWorks
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 19:10:54 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <v83ups$3j2gr$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v7pn6l$1ig94$2@dont-email.me>
 <memo.20240727230028.14216v@jgd.cix.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 01:10:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="adb5febbdd34f2c1090dc771280dbf6b";
	logging-data="3770907"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18UBJHrv2H0f4DnrCX9K0Abv3eABJlqfNM="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RPC0NYBHLrTJidzMouHmRos9MZ0=
In-Reply-To: <memo.20240727230028.14216v@jgd.cix.co.uk>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2104

On 7/27/2024 6:00 PM, John Dallman wrote:
> Sure does. As an Intel engineer said to me: "COM is not only a weird
> meta-API designed to contort your code into forms where you'd have to
> re-write from scratch to run it on anything else. It does that job fine,
> but it also has positive features."

Classic joke: how can one rely on a technology build upon IUnknown.

> Writing COM components was a /lot/ harder than consuming them. Microsoft
> decided to replace it with .NET, over twenty years ago. They tried to
> bring it back in WinRT, but that did not achieve significant acceptance
> or market share, and is dead.

So true.

Using COM components in any language but C++ is super easy. Writing
COM components in C++ requires an expert. I don't know how it was
in VB6.

..NET does support COM, but using COM for pure .NET solutions does
not make much sense. Plain CLR & CTS provides a good replacement
for inproc COM. And various remoting/WCF provides a good replacement
for remote server COM.

Arne