Re: [Q] COM and dynamic link library?
Re: [Q] COM and dynamic link library?
- Subject: Re: [Q] COM and dynamic link library?
- From: Ondra Cada <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 05:38:08 +0200
Scott,
just in a hurry...
On 19.4.2006, at 5:25, Scott Thompson wrote:
... there is nothing preventing a Carbon application from using
Objective-C too
Well, there might be. Conceptually there would be some reason the
application is Carbon -- otherwise it would be Cocoa, which is
infinitely easier to write and maintain. Perhaps an existing code-
base written in C++ (aha! :)). Or a need to unload bundles, which
very definitely was until recently impossible in ObjC (I am not quite
sure of the current state here: ObjC is being improved so that its
bundles can be unloaded as well, but I have no idea how far this
effort got at this moment).
On the other hand, you are very right in that Carbon generally does
not *have to* be C++-based, and that I have expressed myself in an
obfuscating way (which alas happens to me often). The idea was that
(a) ObjC, having an excellent runtime almost without any fragileness
(there's some caused by properties, which could and should be
changed, but I am digressing); therefore it does not need nor use COM;
(b) C++ has a fragile non-dynamic runtime, quite unuseable for
interfacing. Thus, it does need COM or something similar. For obvious
reasons, this does not apply for Cocoa applications (which, even if
they exploit ObjC++, just interface through ObjC runtime); thus it
applies for Carbon ones, if written in C++;
(c) plain C needs and uses COM for otherwise it would have to stick
with weak linking only: whatever inconvenient COM is, it is still
more convenient than that :)
---
Ondra Čada
OCSoftware: email@hidden http://www.ocs.cz
private email@hidden http://www.ocs.cz/oc
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden