Why Microsoft dropped COM
-
my head hurts. ouch. COM sucks. i'm glad MS is finally de-emphasizing it. -c
Conscience is what hurts when everything else feels good. Smaller Animals Software, Inc.
Chris Losinger wrote: COM sucks. i'm glad MS is finally de-emphasizing it. Really? I love COM, but it took me a while to get to grips with it. It finally all made sense after reading Essential COM. I'm sad to see it go, but as least it has evolved rather than been made extinct. Michael :-)
-
Nice read to understand the reasoning behind no deterministic finalization and garbage collection that Microsoft uses with .NET . The Why of GC Cheers, Joao Vaz Unhappy TCL programmer
I was under the impression that COM has not disappeared, but that ".NET" is actually based on COM+? Am I wrong? -- Paul "I drank... WHAT?"
-
my head hurts. ouch. COM sucks. i'm glad MS is finally de-emphasizing it. -c
Conscience is what hurts when everything else feels good. Smaller Animals Software, Inc.
Chris Losinger wrote: COM sucks. Is it that
COMitself sucks, or that the ways in which it is most commonly (mis)used sucks? IME, it has usually been more of the latter. Peace! -=- James. -
Nice read to understand the reasoning behind no deterministic finalization and garbage collection that Microsoft uses with .NET . The Why of GC Cheers, Joao Vaz Unhappy TCL programmer
It should read "Why MS didn't use COM's ref counting for GC" Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
-
I was under the impression that COM has not disappeared, but that ".NET" is actually based on COM+? Am I wrong? -- Paul "I drank... WHAT?"
If I'm correct it only uses COM+ in System.Enterprise Services using the interop services and in fewer windows apis ... Now unless you use a global shared assembly, to deploy your project you simply need to xcopy the files(in theory)..., no more registration errors ... Also since the .NET framework uses GC , using a generational algorithm , it simply doesn't need the IUnknown methods at all , so no COM, unless it needs to interact with COM apis ... Cheers, Joao Vaz Unhappy TCL programmer
-
Chris Losinger wrote: COM sucks. Is it that
COMitself sucks, or that the ways in which it is most commonly (mis)used sucks? IME, it has usually been more of the latter. Peace! -=- James.i dislike the fact that it's not a real OO system - no virtual functions, in particular. the ref counting stuff is a nightmare, even with smart pointers. blah. get rid of it. -c
Conscience is what hurts when everything else feels good. Smaller Animals Software, Inc.
-
It should read "Why MS didn't use COM's ref counting for GC" Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
Yup, you have right, my title is incomplete, but I confess that I was lazy to write the rest... but although, the title well is incomplete ... it worked well, since some people fully readed the article and one guy rightly claimed that was incomplete, so it achieved his goals ... Cheers, Joao Vaz Unhappy TCL programmer
-
Nice read to understand the reasoning behind no deterministic finalization and garbage collection that Microsoft uses with .NET . The Why of GC Cheers, Joao Vaz Unhappy TCL programmer
Though I understand why MS had to adopt GC (and drop deterministic finalization) for inter-language interoperability, I will equally miss a lot the plain C++ style deterministic finalization through creating class instances on the stack (such as CMyDialog dlg; instead of CMyDialog* pDlg = new CMyDialog(); ). It’s just so handy. With .NET, the only way I can use a class object is by creating that using 'new' operator. // Fazlul
Get RadVC today! Play RAD in VC++ http://www.capitolsoft.com
-
Yup, you have right, my title is incomplete, but I confess that I was lazy to write the rest... but although, the title well is incomplete ... it worked well, since some people fully readed the article and one guy rightly claimed that was incomplete, so it achieved his goals ... Cheers, Joao Vaz Unhappy TCL programmer
Heh Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
-
my head hurts. ouch. COM sucks. i'm glad MS is finally de-emphasizing it. -c
Conscience is what hurts when everything else feels good. Smaller Animals Software, Inc.
Chris Losinger wrote: COM sucks I agree. COM was a hack from the start. Not without its uses perhaps, but certianly over sold and over used. If .Net manages to kill it, all the better. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
-
i dislike the fact that it's not a real OO system - no virtual functions, in particular. the ref counting stuff is a nightmare, even with smart pointers. blah. get rid of it. -c
Conscience is what hurts when everything else feels good. Smaller Animals Software, Inc.
Chris Losinger wrote: i dislike the fact that it's not a real OO system Maybe I am being a bit pedantic here, but I was under the impression that
COMwas supposed to be a Component system (and a binary-hack at that), not a full-blown OO system... :) Methinks problems start when people treat COM like a full-blown OO system. Chris Losinger wrote: the ref counting stuff is a nightmare, even with smart pointers. [...] blah. get rid of it. True as hell! I agree on both points! :) Peace! -=- James. -
Though I understand why MS had to adopt GC (and drop deterministic finalization) for inter-language interoperability, I will equally miss a lot the plain C++ style deterministic finalization through creating class instances on the stack (such as CMyDialog dlg; instead of CMyDialog* pDlg = new CMyDialog(); ). It’s just so handy. With .NET, the only way I can use a class object is by creating that using 'new' operator. // Fazlul
Get RadVC today! Play RAD in VC++ http://www.capitolsoft.com
-
Chris Losinger wrote: COM sucks. i'm glad MS is finally de-emphasizing it. Really? I love COM, but it took me a while to get to grips with it. It finally all made sense after reading Essential COM. I'm sad to see it go, but as least it has evolved rather than been made extinct. Michael :-)
-
Nice read to understand the reasoning behind no deterministic finalization and garbage collection that Microsoft uses with .NET . The Why of GC Cheers, Joao Vaz Unhappy TCL programmer
-
Very cool article. Saw it a while ago, but must be one of the most published links that I've come across. Cheers, Simon "I get paid for my brain and my thinking in several obscure worlds", Olli, The Lounge
simons wrote: Very cool article Indeed it is. Nothing better to known the Microsoft reasoning to better understand the current state of affairs concerning .NET (sounds like a political) simons wrote: but must be one of the most published links that I've come across. Without a doubt Brian Harry with his earned popularity due to this post should run up for President !!! :laugh: Joao Vaz Unhappy TCL programmer
-
Nish, check this Garbage Collection Faq and on MSDN specifically for GC on NET by Jeffrey Ritcher ... GC Part 1 GC Part 2 This articles are more approachable to understand GC on .NET . Cheers, Joao Vaz Unhappy TCL programmer
Yeah, I'd read the two part GC article in MSDN Mag before nad thought it was really good. Not had chance to read the one posted in the thread starter yet though, but will be having a look through it soon. -- Andrew.
-
Yeah, I'd read the two part GC article in MSDN Mag before nad thought it was really good. Not had chance to read the one posted in the thread starter yet though, but will be having a look through it soon. -- Andrew.