From the experience I''ve had with COM (mostly from DirectX, but not all), I must say, its disgusting. Im not saying it isn''t great in theory (communism and utopia are also great in theory), but its fugly. Just the amount of errors I got because of COM, and the fact that i have to type out lpVtbl annoys me to death. But if anyone can say they love COM, they must be smoking something powerful.

-----------------------------

A wise man once said "A person with half a clue is more dangerous than a person with or without one."

ImmaGNUMan... you polish weener! ( Said in the politest of ways, I''m actually not trying to be abusive, just mildly amused )...
you''re programming for COM using C aren''t you?
COM is an object-oriented technology ( Component OBJECT Model ). Now there''s an argument for NOT using C when programming for COM. The difficulty using it derives from the fact that you''re using a procedural language to work with an object oriented technology. You''re using the spanner to hammer in the nail!



Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.

C is dead anyway...

"C is dead anyway... "
AHAHAHAHAH!!Hey LucaDG do you work in software industry? if you don''t you can''t imagine how C is alive...
lunasol

lpVtbl ownz... hehe

-----------------------------

A wise man once said "A person with half a clue is more dangerous than a person with or without one."

quote: Original post by MadKeithV
2. C#''s missing features.
I shall not lament the passing of multiple inheritance. Leaving out templates is an unforgiveable mistake for real performance programming though. I guess Microsoft''s compiler staff is just too bad to get their template stuff working properly, where Borland''s seem to have done just fine for a free compiler ( I have no idea about the state of templates in Linux compilers. )

As far as I know, GCC is 99% compatible with ANSI standards, and will be 100% in the next release. I''ve used it myself, so I''d say it''s followed all of the ANSI specs in my programming so far. I''m still kinda new to templates, but from my own experience, GCC does at least as good as VC++.




"If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music he hears, however measured or far away" --Henry David Thoreau

I would say GCC is alot better for ANSI standard than VC++ is anyday. Also I like the way when GCC gives a compiler error, sometimes it will say something like "ANSI forbids this declaration...". I like that because it''s sort of saying "I don''t know I just work here" and you don''t get angry at it, unlike Visual C++ which goes "Hey! You can''t do that!".

Something trivial is just as important as something big