On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 04:43:47PM -0500, Pierre Phaneuf wrote:
> Ari Heitner wrote:
>
> > The illustration of *why* COM is wrong is Windows :)
>
> You're having a case of the bozo-bit anti-pattern here. :-)
>
I agree :)
You're quite right. I'm throwing out possibly several babies with some
(undeniably nasty) bathwater.
I mean "COM is always wrong" in the context of "wanting COM for Unix so we
can make Unix just like Windows, with no consideration of what is
braindamaged about Windows/MSCOM is always wrong".
I have zero problem with COM as a general system for application
architecture/language independence/object introspection/etc etc. While I
don't by Booch/Box/Gamma's general line of COM being a panacea for large
project architecture, I admit that if well used it has a place.
And I have *zero* problem with COM on Unix as long as it maintains sane Unix
paradigms -- things like "only programs running as root can modify
system-wide settings" and "general libraries are provided by the system;
applications can specify dependencies, but don't get to mess with the
available libraries, except in their own out-of-the-way places".
As long as XPCOM remembers to learn from the best of the worlds it bridges,
we'll be in very good shape.
ari
