Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Calling simple and idiomatic procedural C interfaces [0] "clunky" and then contrasting them with the abomination that is COM is worthy of disagreement. Maybe the latter has its uses (I've never suffered enough through it to actually use it) but it definitely wins the clunkyness award. And that starts with its ridiculously unsearchable name.

[0] I really don't care if in C or a different language, but I'm not aware of relevant programming subcultures where that simplicity of interfacing is such an important pillar to their culture and their success.



With first class support (C++/WinRT, VCL, .NET) writing COM components is no different from ordinary C++ classes.

Yes, C is clunky and primitive, it was my opinion in 1992 coming from Turbo Pascal 6, and it hasn't changed since.


No different from ordinary C++ classes? (which are themselves more complex than what you need to suffer through with C)?

Seriously, here is just one taste of the intricacies of the COM: https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/9190/Understanding-The-...

This is 90's enterprise OOP technology. There is no good excuse to use this other than technical debt.


Naturally it is 90's enterprise technology, specially when you dig a 2005 article instead of a 2020 one.

There is no good excuse to use outdated articles to attack technology one hates.

Here, some 2020 stuff to educate yourself.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/get-started/cre...

When I attack C's clunky and archaic coding, I do so with full knowledge of C17 and how little it has changed with K&R C that I learned in 1992, in API design and OS security.


Here is an example of good code (written in C) exposed as a library with a clean procedural interface. Nothing archaic about that.

https://github.com/rytc/enet_single/blob/master/enet_single....




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: