3 ms·
That 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 fa
by pjmlp 7d ago
That 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 7d 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 6d 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.