Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Chris Townley Newsgroups: comp.os.vms Subject: Re: BridgeWorks Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 00:15:46 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 01:15:47 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d2729303e3f447584e404f774afa737b"; logging-data="3540030"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18IpEN7qYAfr32RnhoZT3CVeTRnGjsahJ8=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:iA4l6ekqmBBNG3fHFBTzuWu/Zn4= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: Bytes: 2294 On 28/07/2024 00:10, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > 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 I always worried about copying DCL .com files onto a PC, as the antivirus software would always class them as 'dodgy' -- Chris