>> Yeah, well, I had noticed that you seem to know far more about COM 
>> than I do. 
> 
> Not *that* much. Maybe a half a day's worth of learning?

Heh. I've spent somewhat more than half a day reading about it. What 
I'll probably never do is actually use it...

>>> Which implementation do you use?
>> Smalltalk VisualWorks. I *think* it was v3.0...
> 
> http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/documentation/current/ReleaseNotes7.5.pdf
> 
> They were up to a version that supports it (7.5) five years ago. You 
> were working with V3.0.  Perhaps you were using a pre-COM version that 
> wouldn't run under Win98 or something?

No, we were running it under Windows 98. I guess the release we had just 
didn't have COM support implemented yet. (Remember that Smalltalk is 
basically its own little world. Talking to stuff outside probably isn't 
a high priority.)

I recall having a look at v5 (I think) at some point, and while they'd 
added lots of nice features, they made the system too complicated. I 
didn't like it, so I went back to v3.

>>> Plus, you probably use Word and Excel, and they both support COM too.
>> You mean VBA supports COM?
> 
> How do you think VBA talks to the application?  Of course it supports 
> COM. That's pretty much *all* it supports. It doesn't really do anything 
> on its own.

Well, I guess that makes sense.

On the other hand, VBA doesn't seem to require you to memorise 20-digit 
GUIDs or interface index numbers or any of the other stuff that the COM 
documentation seems to indicate is necessary, so...?

Post a reply to this message