Both COM and .NET are "vendor-supported infrastructures," which the (one and only) vendor of the system-in-question supports throughout their entire software architecture.
I-F you choose to "bite-off and accept 100% of the Microsoft® Way of Doing Everything," then these strategies might well be seen to have compelling advantages. But, since they are, themselves, the product of one vendor (and, until very recently, protected as a profound legal secret by that one vendor ...), they abruptly stop ... and lose much of their effectiveness therefore also their appeal ... when the "cross-vendor moment" is reached.
I think that it truly can't be argued that Microsoft achieved their lofty design goals for both systems. But, and necessarily, those solutions pre-suppose, "our way or no-way" with basically nothing in-between. I don't think they could have done it any other way, had they been inclined to, which of course they weren't. But, in a world where "Linux and so-forth aren't going away," the design is both a blessing and a curse.
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 01-13-2015 at 03:10 PM.
|