3 ms·
Trouble is you can't really the solve the problem Microsoft had without using something like COM. Good news is you don't have to care - you can use C# or Rust a
by blinkingled 6y ago
Trouble is you can't really the solve the problem Microsoft had without using something like COM. Good news is you don't have to care - you can use C# or Rust and not worry about COM.
- pjmlp 6y agoSomehow I think .NET would have been much better had it started as something like .NET Native, but yeah cannot turn back in time.
- barrkel 6y agoIt would have been no good for web application servers, which is where the competition was going. Native would have chased the declining native GUI market.
- pjmlp 6y agoSure it would, after all that is where backend development is going to, back to AOT compilation toolchains. If Delphi never managed much on the server side, it has more to do with the downfall from Borland than anything else. So ASP + COM would be ASP.NET with COM+ Runtime instead.
- barrkel 6y agoI just don't buy it. Delphi could have done better, but not good enough. I think on its best day it would have had a hard time time competing with Java, much less Python or Ruby, and Rails was on the up as Delphi's .NET strategy was on the wane. It needed to be an open source cross-platform compiler to be truly viable in the Linux ecosystem, and Linux would be needed to compete with Windows and its licensing fees. Anything other than C# is always a step or two behind on .NET, and .NET was the best route to web apps on Windows. The only reason AOT is coming back for web apps is FaaS, IMO. FaaS works best with minimal boot-up latency, and FaaS delivers operationally as a way to scale out stateless compute on demand, which optimally means acquiring those compute resources just for the duration of a request or job, and no longer.