4 ms·
I've never heard of anyone calling SOM 'better' at anything this century. I came across it when it was the foundation for OpenDoc at Apple, your comment brought
by mamp 17d ago
I've never heard of anyone calling SOM 'better' at anything this century. I came across it when it was the foundation for OpenDoc at Apple, your comment brought back many bad memories
- pjmlp 17d agoCompared with COM's design, it was much better.
- mitxela 16d agoClasses and metaclasses sound like architecture astronomy here. COM is fundamentally just a standard ABI and a way to look up DLL paths in the registry. There are more layers on top of that, but that's the basics and all you need for a plugin architecture.
- pjmlp 16d agoThat applies to SOM just as it does to COM. Interesting to complain about one and then ignore exactly the same boilerplate for the other. Leaving aside the fact that Microsoft's tooling for COM has already had multiple reboots between VB OCX, MFC, .NET Framework RCW/CCW, .NET ComWrappers, ATL, WRL, WIL, WinRT, each one with its share of astronomy. No one uses the bare bones vtbl and nothing else.
- mitxela 16d agoYou assume I know anything about SOM. Everything uses the bare bones vtbl. That's how there can be so many things, they're all using the bare bones vtbl. Obviously there's application specific stuff as well because a bare bones vtbl is not useful by itself but that's like saying if TCP is so good why is there HTTP?
- pjmlp 16d agoBecause I thought this was a further discussion and did not notice another username, sorry about that. The point being that beyond the plain vtbl, SOM was much better designed than COM, in the sense of overall architecture for application development.