Re: Newbie question

"Matthias Moetje" <moetje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23FQWxmvrFHA.3264@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> If you have a simple single-threaded and single-connection application
> without GUI: Yes.

Well, that would be typical of a VB application, wouldn't it? ;-)

>> I really don't know not having done the research because there is no way
> I'd ever use version 3 of the API in a real application <g>.
>
> Why? Probably because you don't know it?

[Oh, so now we've moved on from discussing the best way for the OP to
proceed and have now moved on to mind reading and personal affronts? I can
play that.]

No. I don't use version 3 because it is COM based. And I don't use COM for
the same reason I don't play with Lego blocks. I've moved on and grown up.

And the point is that I know too much rather than too little. I am far too
well versed in Win32 with its support for thread pools, APCs, critical
sections, mutexes and with C++'s far more elegant object model than to
choose the god-awful morass of multi-threaded apartments, single threaded
apartments, neutral apartments, free threaded marshallers, window message
pumps in servers where there should be none, dodgy reference counting and
all the other gunk that is COM. Frankly, it exists largely to make easy and
comfortable the lives of the less ambitious and less technically astute.
I'll pass on it, thank you.

And no matter what one's perspective on COM, here is a clue: It is done, put
a fork in it. :-)

Remember COM+? Five years ago, it looked like COM+ was going to be an
attempt by some to 'save' COM. Thankfully, saner heads prevailed, COM+ gave
way to the .Net platform, and COM is dieing a slow death. May it rest in
peace!

In short, I know the difference between easy and good and modern and legacy.
That's why I don't use it.

Regards,
Will


.

Loading