The first threat to Microsoft Windows since BeOS
- Thread starter NathanE
- Start date
- Status
Simply put.. COM and the shambles that Microsoft have labelled "Interoperability"
Eh? That has nothing to do with C# though... That's just the COM Interop features that .NET has. Which are nicely tucked away in a seperate namespace and which aren't even loaded if you don't need to use it.
It's a flaw with .NET (and other MS platforms) which C# is a part of. Lack of Covariance/Contravariance is a flaw in C# (that will be rectified in the next release I hear.)
I'll point you in the direction of:
http://www.securiteam.com/securitynews/5TP010UPFU.html
Basically you can purposely write HTML to crash browsers. Which people will, and currently, do to exploit. As pointed out at the moment Chrome is the most 'vulnerable' web browser out there.
Without going through your replies point for point (or commonly known as pointing out the blooming obvious) whats the point in having an operating system, be it linux, windows, mac os, chrome os, that doesnt support an offline mode. Every operating system listed previously (apart from Chrome) does. Whats the point in releasing an operating system that's not compatible with 96% of of the market? What's the point in not being able to use your laptop/whatever when you are mobile and not able to get web connectivity?
Get over myself? What for? For pointing out fundamental flaws?
M.
Last edited:
How on earth is supporting COM Interop a flaw? 
It's a bonus that comes at no expense or compromise to the rest of the language and/or framework.
Covariance and contravariance are just niceties. A language that doesn't have them can't be considered flawed (in the same way that supporting COM interop isn't a flaw!).
Next you'll be saying type safety is also a flaw in C#
It's a bonus that comes at no expense or compromise to the rest of the language and/or framework.Covariance and contravariance are just niceties. A language that doesn't have them can't be considered flawed (in the same way that supporting COM interop isn't a flaw!).
Next you'll be saying type safety is also a flaw in C#
I've always maintained that type restrictions (how the hell is it safety?) is a flaw, or to be exact, it's a work around for a lazy compiler.
Covariance/contravariance are much more than niceties. Do you call anything that you are expressly prohibited from doing a nicety?
Anywho.. COM Interop is a flaw, so stop twisting my posts, ta. It's an unnecessary work around for something that was not implemented well in the first place (i.e. COM.) Was a good idea, poorly executed. Far too restrictive, and far too 'cards close to my chest.'
Covariance/contravariance are much more than niceties. Do you call anything that you are expressly prohibited from doing a nicety?
Anywho.. COM Interop is a flaw, so stop twisting my posts, ta. It's an unnecessary work around for something that was not implemented well in the first place (i.e. COM.) Was a good idea, poorly executed. Far too restrictive, and far too 'cards close to my chest.'
Last edited:
*sigh* to start, I didn't tell you to get over yourself, I told you to get over the fact this will not be another "Windows".
If they are aiming for a cloud 'terminal' then what is the point of having an "offline mode"? Although they probably will have an offline mode, namely using Google Gears (most likely). But why did you explicitly state it must support Steam, a purposely built for Windows DRM platform, in order for Google's OS to be a success?
That's like someone saying Windows 7 must natively support Bash in order for it to be a success.
The link you provided is nothing to do with malformed HTML. It is an exploit specific to that browser, namely a 'special char'. That is not HTML's fault, that is purely the browser. Again, malformed HTML cannot, and will not, cause your browser to crash.
I'm twisting your posts am I? I've done no such thing.
So you would prefer everything to be variant objects would you? And duck typing I suppose? Great. To me, these are all code smells designed to make programming more approachable for junior developers. The compiler isn't being lazy - it is providing a contract to the developer(s).
Co/contravariance... they are not needed. I've managed for years with out them. Sure it will be nice (hence "niceties") that C# 4.0 will have them but that's all. Frankly these type of feature introductions cause more headaches than anything. Because it means you start to get young, dumb, "RDD" (Resumé-driven-development) developers beginning to use them in a project which otherwise isn't using them which can cause maintenance issues.
Interop by definition is a "workaround". Like you say. Interop is a wrapper to make things work with a system that otherwise wouldn't speak in that language. Again, you've not really explained why you perceive COM Interop as a flaw in .NET/C#. All you've come up with is historical reasons for why COM was **** and nobody will disagree with you on that. But on the actual point of the Interop being 'flawed'... I am beginning to think that you can't give a reason.
I've done no such thing.So you would prefer everything to be variant objects would you? And duck typing I suppose? Great. To me, these are all code smells designed to make programming more approachable for junior developers. The compiler isn't being lazy - it is providing a contract to the developer(s).
Co/contravariance... they are not needed. I've managed for years with out them. Sure it will be nice (hence "niceties") that C# 4.0 will have them but that's all. Frankly these type of feature introductions cause more headaches than anything. Because it means you start to get young, dumb, "RDD" (Resumé-driven-development) developers beginning to use them in a project which otherwise isn't using them which can cause maintenance issues.
Interop by definition is a "workaround". Like you say. Interop is a wrapper to make things work with a system that otherwise wouldn't speak in that language. Again, you've not really explained why you perceive COM Interop as a flaw in .NET/C#. All you've come up with is historical reasons for why COM was **** and nobody will disagree with you on that. But on the actual point of the Interop being 'flawed'... I am beginning to think that you can't give a reason.
Resume driven developers are those that flock to .NET jobs because .NET "looks good" on a CV. If "RDDs" are attracted to Dynamic languages, does that mean any and all leading developers, such as the Gang of Four, Martin Fowler, Kent Beck, Ken Schwaber, Dave Astels, the list goes on, whom all look up to languages like Smalltalk, Ruby, Lisp, Self, etc. are RDDs? .NET and Java development roles are currently the most sought after, so why would RDD's flock away from them?
And you were twisting my posts. I said COM Interop is a flaw, you twisted that to "Supporting COM Interop".
Well done, you've managed for years without Covariance. Unfortunately I had a situation where the *only* solution other than covariance was to copy/paste entire classes (because of differing namespace,) simply because C# would not allow me to use Covariance. The classes were identical, the namespaces were not. Compiler says no. Lazy compiler, because it would not lookup if the methods I am calling exist on the objects. Funny how other languages manage to do this.
Also, you've touched on another sore nerve. The elitist snobbery that exists with .NET developers like yourself. You look down on developers who prefer dynamic typing, simply because it is dynamic, and easier to work with?
and finally... Interop is flawed because COM is flawed. That short enough of a summary for you?
And you were twisting my posts. I said COM Interop is a flaw, you twisted that to "Supporting COM Interop".
Well done, you've managed for years without Covariance. Unfortunately I had a situation where the *only* solution other than covariance was to copy/paste entire classes (because of differing namespace,) simply because C# would not allow me to use Covariance. The classes were identical, the namespaces were not. Compiler says no. Lazy compiler, because it would not lookup if the methods I am calling exist on the objects. Funny how other languages manage to do this.
Also, you've touched on another sore nerve. The elitist snobbery that exists with .NET developers like yourself. You look down on developers who prefer dynamic typing, simply because it is dynamic, and easier to work with?
and finally... Interop is flawed because COM is flawed. That short enough of a summary for you?
Last edited:
So yeah basically you're a very opinionated fellow that has a chip on his shoulder against .NET, COM and well basically anything Microsoft.
My suspicions confirmed. Thanks.
Also thanks for trashing this thread. Will remember your name.
My suspicions confirmed. Thanks.
Also thanks for trashing this thread. Will remember your name.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
I disagree.
It's all about the right tool for the job IMO. Some languages are better for webapps, such as Rails, Grails, Flex etc, some are better for performance reliant apps such as C++, or any non byte-code compiled language, some have other good bits. The problem is when you are using a language for the wrong application.
I agree, but I was referring more to m4cc45's post.
- Status