3 ms·
Same. I miss how awesome COM was too. DCOM was a couple of orders of magnitude more fiddly to get working. But amazing once it worked. Create an object on anot
by marcus_holmes 6y ago
Same. I miss how awesome COM was too.
DCOM was a couple of orders of magnitude more fiddly to get working. But amazing once it worked. Create an object on another server, call its methods, side effects happen on that server, results are returned to your process.
When I was learning Go the similarity between COM interfaces and Go interfaces really helped me grok them quicker.
- pjmlp 6y agoIt still is, powering all major Windows APIs since Vista.
- marcus_holmes 6y agoyeah, but I don't write desktop apps any more, so it's not something I use any more.
- cesarb 6y agoDCOM was also amazing, in how much surface area it exposed to the network. Random COM objects which were never intended to be called remotely, and were poorly secured, could be exposed by accident. So in the infamous Windows XP SP2 (not a major release of the operating system, but a mere service pack), DCOM got locked down hard. If you have a legitimate use for DCOM (like an OPC-DA server), you have to toggle several obscure settings to make it work again (see https://www-bd.fnal.gov/controls/opc/Using_OPC_via_DCOM_with_XP_SP2_v1.10.pdf https://www-bd.fnal.gov/controls/opc/Using_OPC_via_DCOM_with... for a fourteen-page tutorial).
- marcus_holmes 6y agoyeah, MS had a hard time with security around then. Lots of stuff that was open had to be locked down.
- barrkel 6y agoI like to compare HTTP / REST / HATEOAS with DCOM, conceptually. DCOM was deeply misguided as a model for distributed programming. When you look at an actually functioning system, you realize that network transparency at the programming level is possibly the worst thing you can do. Can you imagine how web pages would work under a DCOM model?