On Aug 5, 2014, at 1:52 PM, Jim Starkey wrote:
> Yes, that has been often said, and it been often disputed. It has been > explained any number of times, but you continue to ignore the arguments. > > I'll try once more. Try to pay attention. > > It is true that difference C++ implementations have different vtables. It is > also true that it is impossible to mix object modules from these different > compilers. So it matters not at all. > > I makes sense to define a pure virtual OO interface for many reasons. But it > is also simple and straightforward to layer a non-OO interface with handles > on top of the OO interface, which would make everyone happy. > > The only nice thing about IDL is that it will make everyone equally unhappy. > Fair, perhaps, but not a good solution. > > Use C++, use it as it was intended to be used, don't get cute, don't try for > unnecessary (and impractical) universality. > My first thought on seeing the IDL proposal was "Oh the Complexity!". My other thought was, "Do we have any examples of this approach in any major relational DB?" I guess I've been arguing a "non-OO" interface all along. Thank you Jim, for making it obvious and putting it in perspective. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Infragistics Professional Build stunning WinForms apps today! Reboot your WinForms applications with our WinForms controls. Build a bridge from your legacy apps to the future. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=153845071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
