Re: Crippled Products and the IE Question

[Steve Cohen <stevecoh@mcs.com>]

Not exactly.
Hell, just read Microsoft's well-known "OLE evangelist", Kraig Brockschmidt.
His work all waxes eloquent about components being able to fail gracefully in
the
absence of other components, giving less but acceptable functionality.  That is

different from breaking in the absence of these components.

As for taking OOP beyond where it currently is, I would be more likely to buy
Microsoft's claims if they would provide the same documentation on the
interfaces
to outsiders as they do to themselves.

Scott K. McGrath wrote:

> Tod; Actually, it's a good idea and practiced rather widely.  Why?  Because
> you make a module take a certain input, expecting it to give you a certain
> result.  This way it can be called by multiple apps without having to
> re-invent the wheel each time you need a similar function.  It's like
> taking OOP to another level beyond where it currently is...
>
> Scott K. McGrath
> mcgrats@ix.netcom.com
>
> > Tod Landis <landis@cruzio.com> writes:
> > > Incidentally, making modules so dependent on one another, the way
> > > that Microsoft does, is a bad practice.