Re: Re: aggergate vs MI

At 14:03 09/04/2002, Wez Furlong wrote:

On 09/04/02, "Zeev Suraski" <zeev@zend.com> wrote: COM's a hack, though. It really is. What they did in ATL basically does a fair amount of magic to give you the ability to inherit code with COM's strict binary compatible model... COM implemented in C/C++ is, as you say, a hack.

It was born there, after Microsoft figured out that dynamic libraries were really hellish :)

When the language supports COM style interfaces natively, it starts looking less like a hack and more like something really nice.

Well, I guess it's a matter of perspective, but I think that it's no coincidence they moved away from COM :)

There is another point that keeps coming to mind when comparing MI with interfaces: method name conflicts. Consider this, using an MI approach to implementing interfaces:

[snip] Hmm, you refer to interfaces a-la COM? Hmm, I was under the impression that if we use interfaces, it'll be the same as Java, and then what you said about naming conflicts doesn't apply at all. QueryInterface() is a hack, which may have a positive side effect (avoids naming collisions), but it's still a hack :) Zeev