On 2/10/06, Ian Griffiths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps he did all his COM programming in C++? > > Over the last 6 months I happen to have had two engagements that have > required me to do COM and C++ again. > > It made me realize I'd forgotten just how less productive it is than > .NET. > > And it's specifically a language thing, rather than a broader tooling > issue. C++ COM code requires you to write about three or four times as > much code as you would in C#. And there are lots of extra ways it can go > wrong, so you end up spending so much more of your time and effort > having to think about things that are absolutely nothing to do with the > problem you're actually trying to solve. > > I'd forgotten how painful C++ COM was. (Although this is more a C++ > issue than it is a COM issue. There are languages in which COM is > pretty easy to use.)
Such as VB. VB6 *is* COM. VB6 cannot be aything other than COM and if something interacts with VB, it should also be considered COM, per se. Microsoft just transferred that line of thinking (for a longer-view) to .NET by putting everything within a single framework. As their perspective or direction changes for .NET, all of the code will follow. Should they introduce chaos, particularly because of too much forward compatibility, they may find themselves in the same boat as Borland in early '93 - one of the times a Microsoft foe crashed & burned and gave Microsoft the lion's share of the market, despite Microsoft not doing anything to cause it. Of course, that's just one of two things Borland did in roughly the same timeframe to get something rather tender caught in their collective zippers to nearly wipe themselves off of the map. phil ___________________________ =================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentor® http://www.develop.com View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
