Is COM an 'outdated' technology?

[Dalek Dave]

What is .NNet?

--------------------------------- I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] English League Tables - Live

[CPallini]

A managed typo.

Veni, vidi, vici.

[Dalek Dave]

Manage this upvote I gave you!

--------------------------------- I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] English League Tables - Live

[CPallini]

...Collected! :-D

Veni, vidi, vici.

[RugbyLeague]

I seem to recall Don Box sitting on stage at Tech-Ed in Barcelona some years ago writing .Net code and saying something along the lines of "What the hell was I thinking for all those years"

[Lost User]

CPallini wrote:

It actually did.

Yeah, it stopped idiot programers making a mess of the system I suppose.

============================== Nothing to say.

[CPallini]

Nope, it is all about binary components re-using (as the name suggests).

Veni, vidi, vici.

[Eytukan]

COM is dead? But ask "where?". COM is dead in user applications. There used to be tons of classic Asp, VB6.0 & even VC 6++ solutions that made extensive use of COM, DCOM, ActiveX etc.In these places, for example COM is literally dead. If a clients requests for a solution for their business, the application developers would no more need to look out for COM. So much has evolved in the managed world. Microsoft took pain to carry all those complex COM on their shoulders. Giving you the option to develop in much simpler tools. For example, DCOM is replaced by remoting in Dotnet, WCF & so many new frameworks give you much cleaner interface for your distributed apps. If you look at COM generated marshalling code, it'd look like it's done by a drunk php coder ;P. But COM is still there in every other places. For example, UMDF (driver framework, uses COM). So the idea is this, if you really need COM, it's there.

Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.

[Lost User]

CPallini wrote:

Nope, it is all about binary components re-using (as the name suggests).

I was always told it was a way to avoid DLL hell. Of course if people renamed funcs when they changed the parameters in dlls we wouldnt have had that problem. I have used COM, never found it any better that a dll, and the installation is a PITA.

============================== Nothing to say.

[CPallini]

Erudite_Eric wrote:

I was always told it was a way to avoid DLL hell.

That's a really naive point.

Veni, vidi, vici.

[Espen Harlinn]

Succinct ;)

Espen Harlinn Senior Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services My LinkedIn Profile

[Lost User]

:thumbsup: Well said :)

Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.

[adityarao31]

I am new to COM,DCOM,I am a MFC Programmer. Is it wise to study COM,DCOM at this time? Does microsoft will remove the support for this architecture in near future? Please help me on this issue as its very important for my career

Be Happy

[CPallini]

adityarao31 wrote:

Is it wise to study COM,DCOM at this time?

It will wise at any time. At least to have some insight: COM is fashinating.

adityarao31 wrote:

Does microsoft will remove the support for this architecture in near future?

Nope.

Veni, vidi, vici.

[adityarao31]

Thank you very much,for giving some of your precious time for replying my question.

Be Happy