May 26th, 2003, 10:36 AM
do we need com after having .net?
right now i am learning about .net .. i just think that i shoud try something new for me (actually .net have been quite old)... after i read a few chapter of .net.. there is a question raised in my mind... do we still need 'ms com/com+' tech. when we r using .net (for distributed apps)?
May 26th, 2003, 12:08 PM
1. No, COM is no longer needed in principle, because .NET's interfaces are much nicer, work better etc. They implement everything you could do with COM anyway.
2. Lots of things are still implemented by COM, and Microsoft seem unwilling to change them. Therefore, the only way of doing these things is with COM interop, which stinks.
A lot of the .NET API anyway only provides wrappers for a COM interop layer.
So as ever, Microsoft promised that .NET would replace COM, yet retain COM for the foreseeable future.
For a start, many products which have been labelled ".NET", use COM internally and as a programming interface. A lot of the products the .NET interface was added as an afterthought rather than being the main way.
May 26th, 2003, 12:15 PM
in other words..
take a load of ****
take a can of paint
tada.. a new Microsoft product..
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI.
When in Russia, pet a PETSCII.
Get your ass over to SLAYRadio
the best station for C64 Remixes !
May 26th, 2003, 03:26 PM
You might still deal with com/com+ based legacy code, but that is about it.
"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes." - Erasmus
"There is no programming language, no matter how structured, that will prevent programmers from writing bad programs." - L. Flon
"Mischief my ass, you are an unethical moron." - chsh
Blog of X