search

twinbasic / lang-design

Language Design for twinBASIC
MIT License
10 stars 1 forks source link

MS COM-less Future Plans - and how they impact twinBasic #68

Open mburns08109 opened 2 weeks ago

mburns08109 commented 2 weeks ago

All,

I've been "away from tB" for a while - something that started with a workstation meltdown and OS-reinstall thanks to DELL's "support" (or, would they be more aptly labelled "hinder"?) folks.

However, in the interim, I've been immersing myself in various other subjects for a while, and that - combined with a bit of imaginative "tea-leaf reading", perhaps - has led me to an unsettling possible conclusion. That is: Microsoft seems to be planning a COM-less future, and that future will include complete removal of the existing Windows Registry and all COM-related support infrastructure from "future OS" architectures (perhaps not even named "Windows" anymore?).

Digest, for a moment, what that thought will mean to any sort of future for twinBasic. No COM or ActiveX support from the OS because there will be no registry - and no underlying "Jet-Blue" database engine. Therefore, everything built in the past based on COM - including twinBasic applications of the future, will no longer work. at all.

So, perhaps we need to consider a "COM/Registry Replacement Project" of our own to help "future-proof" this twinBasic platform's future (or perhaps I mean "destiny"?). Considering that kind of potential path forwards now opens entirely new avenues for "Cross-platform" development considerations as well.

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion here - that we craft a "New-COM" (inevitably shortened to "NCOM") support system to replace the Windows Registry-based COM's historical system architecture with a new one of our own. Well, being makers of that new "NCOM" architecture, we could build in cross-platform capabilities into the specification. So, those Android- and Apple- and Linux- and "Windows"- apps of the future being enabled with an installable "NCOM Core" in the Android OS (and other) environment(s).

Now, that I've derailed some of your thinking process, consider this: what if we DON'T consider this possibility - and I'm right in predicting a "COM-less Windows OS" of the future. Where will we, as twinBasic folks, be should that "COM-less future OS" day actually arrive?

fafalone commented 2 weeks ago

I'm not sure about COM-less when Windows Runtime is built on top of COM (and can indeed be used from VBx/tB, if you're patient enough to dig through the heavy obfuscation).

I'd assume tB's cross-platform implementation would work on Windows too; so I think just targeting whatever that uses should be sufficient in the future.

mburns08109 commented 2 weeks ago

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. By COM-less, I mean totally and complete COM-less - INCLUDING the core re-write of a future (non?-)Windows OS. Suppose they base this Future-Windows core architecture on .Net core concepts instead? I'm sensing a real desire to "shed their past's limitations" as heavily influencing the thoughts of senior-level MS Management types in their desire to "move forward". I could be very wrong here, but at this point, I think it's irresponsible (for me, at least) to not at least posit this question and consider it seriously.

dmrvb commented 2 weeks ago

My dream is that tB will eventually grow to include support for Android and iPhone/iPad and so will have a future regardless of what Microsoft might choose to do.