|
You should be careful when using trigger words!
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
What proof is there?
Do mermaid mathematicians wear an algee-bra?
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: (Sorry it's late, I've been busy)
That's what she said.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I showed this post to my middle eastern friend. He said it is al-gibberish.
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know why as I just loathe COM but I just ventured into this forum.
Only 3 posts this year. Despite what people say, the world is getting better!
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
I want to know where the CORBA forum is. 
|
|
|
|
|
Funnily, .NET is still COM, and so is the Windows Store Apps framework. Just underneath though, so end users / developers don't need to worry about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, you can still worry about it if you want to with WinRT/UWP. The COM is still very much usable, you just need to call functions starting with 'Ro' where you would have previously called ones starting with 'Co'. So RoCreateClass, RoCreateInstance, RoActivateInstance, etc etc. There might be more to it than that, but thus far I've avoided trying to actually do it because I value my sanity.
There's more info here in case anyone wants to try it out.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I know. I did play with those new API calls when WinRT was in pre-beta. You can also use WRL which is basically ATL for WinRT
|
|
|
|
|
<OldSoldier>
<WarStory>
I spent a long time dealing with COM in C++/MFC, using it for a plug-in framework for an application. It was horrendously difficult, largely because of Microsoft's poor documentation and failure to provide complete, working samples. The worst part of it was their use of vocabulary that they refused to define, other than in terms of other COM vocabulary: 'apartment' and 'moniker' come to mind. I never have figured out what a moniker was for. I eventually made it work through experimentation and dogged determination.
</WarStory>
</OldSoldier>
Software Zen: delete this;
modified 6-Oct-16 19:19pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Automatic up-vote for old-timer COM horror story.
|
|
|
|
|
And another. Good Lord what was MS thinking - COM, COM+ DCOM, needles in eyes, give me needles.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
If you're going to use <OldSolder> please remember to add the mandatory attribute <Flux>.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
There's just no pleasing some people  .
Hmm. I'm trying to imagine the soldering iron you'd use with 69 KVA lines, like in your old job  .
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Just place the ends together, wrap with duct tape, and energize; they weld themselves.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
It wouldn't surprise me to find that to be the simple truth. I'm (I think properly) cautious when I deal with 120V/220V around the house. 69KV is frigging scary sh*t.
Software Zen: delete this;
modified 7-Oct-16 6:19am.
|
|
|
|
|
"Funnily, .NET is still COM"
No, no it is not.
The Windows Store app model is derived from COM, but .NET is something else altogether. That is why there are COM interop classes.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: No, no it is not.
The Windows Store app model is derived from COM, but .NET is something else altogether. That is why there are COM interop classes.
On Windows, the .NET CLR/GC/JIT is implemented via COM. Every time you run a .NET executable, the .NET CLR is injected as an in-proc COM server. Also, if your native apps ever need to host the CLR, you would use the COM based API.
Of course, it's an implementation detail, so an end-developer using C# or VB need not be aware of this 
|
|
|
|
|
Having a COM-based hosting is slightly different from ".NET is still COM".
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. I should have expressed that better. Mostly, I was implying that COM is certainly not dead.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm doing modern windows development too. Just started with...
int WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow)
{
MSG msg;
BOOL bRet;
for(; ; )
{
bRet = GetMessage(&msg, NULL, 0, 0);
if (bRet > 0)
{
TranslateMessage(&msg);
DispatchMessage(&msg);
}
else if (bRet < 0)
{
}
else
{
break;
}
}
return msg.wParam;
}
It's a joke, people. A joke.  But, also, that code still works.
|
|
|
|
|
Classic stuff. Reminds me of interview questions 20 years ago!
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Sheldon Cooper thought of it first!
|
|
|
|
|
So Nish...when's your job going to get outsourced to a guy in India? 
|
|
|
|
|
So Nish...when's your job going to get outsourced to a guy in India?
When I deem that the time has come. 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
