At 14:03 09/04/2002, Wez Furlong wrote: >On 09/04/02, "Zeev Suraski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > COM's a hack, though. It really is. > > What they did in ATL basically > > does a fair amount of magic to give you the ability to inherit code with > > COM's strict binary compatible model... > >COM implemented in C/C++ is, as you say, a hack.
It was born there, after Microsoft figured out that dynamic libraries were really hellish :) > When the language >supports COM style interfaces natively, it starts looking less like >a hack and more like something really nice. Well, I guess it's a matter of perspective, but I think that it's no coincidence they moved away from COM :) >There is another point that keeps coming to mind when comparing MI with >interfaces: method name conflicts. Consider this, using an MI approach to >implementing interfaces: [snip] Hmm, you refer to interfaces a-la COM? Hmm, I was under the impression that if we use interfaces, it'll be the same as Java, and then what you said about naming conflicts doesn't apply at all. QueryInterface() is a hack, which may have a positive side effect (avoids naming collisions), but it's still a hack :) Zeev -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
