i guess they mean that. signals and slots, merely.. something like this.

"Achilleas Margaritis" <axilmar@b-online.gr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:bv97o4$1knd$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> By the way, the article simply says "we are gonna use message passing" instead of "handling communication between objects". The message passing technique is used in the defense industry for as long as I remember myself working in it: an app is separated in different processes and they communicate through message passing. What does have COM to do with it ?
COM
> is just a mechanism that hides the message passing. Under it, message passing happens.
>
> Unless they meant that programming languages will have message passing instead. So, a message could be sent to an object and the object will call one of its methods if there is a registered handler for it...much like message dispatching works in MFC/BFC/WxWindows but in a completely transparent way that the language defines...
>
> That's a useful programming technique. Maybe D can use it.
>
> "Vaygr Bomber" <Vaygr_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bv7o3n$254g$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Microsoft is planning to including message
> > passing to replace COM and DCOM in future Windows
> > including Longhorn.
> >
> > Here is the link:
> >
> > http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5148148.html
> >
> > Objective C provides some message passing.
> > Will there be an interface for message passing in D?
> >
> >
>
>

"davepermen" <davepermen@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bv9a8g$1pco$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> why? you can static compile every .NET app if you want to.
>
> performance is no issue.

It depends on the application. For the kind of applications my company makes, performance is still an issue. And it will be for a long time to come.

and even managed apps can have native code in, if
> needed. they will just have to be "WHQL Certified" (or similar), that
means,
> you will, at installation time, have to accept this application to run on your system.
>
> admins can allow every app to run. they can allow native apps because of this, too. users can't chose anymore. _THATS_ what makes the system
stable.
> it essencially makes msblast a nonissue, as well as iloveyou, or lovesan,
or
> anything else. as well as appcrashes, etc.

The problem with viruses is that they have runnable code embedded in them which is executed at one click. If Outlook did not permit VBscript and Jscript code execution, then there would not be a problem.

Application crashes happen in managed languages, too. If, for example, try to access a Java object from a NULL pointer, the application will create an exception and crash.

Security and algorithmic problems are not a function of the programming language, nor of the execution environment.

>
> ms is working on this since years. don't you think the first "cries of cirtics" aren't handled properly? they know the problems that can arise bether than any of us, and they will take care, and even do so now.

You forget about what they care most: vendor lock-in. For them, progress is tied to their monopoly being maintained. But that is totally different issue, not worthy of being discussed here.