Talk:Portable Distributed Objects

Horribly biased article
This article seems to be horribly biased to me, and inaccurate as well:


 * It seems to be claiming that Objective C is a naturally superior language to anything else, and that because PDO was written in Objective C it is substantially better.
 * The claim that PDO was ignored because it didn't work with C++ and everyone ignored anything that didn't use C++ even if it was "better" is laughable
 * It seems to take every opportunity possible to take a swipe at MS's COM, OLE and DCOM technologies, which is described as having "limited functionality" (without source). It also seems to get the history of COM wrong; COM was not evolved from OLE, but written as a basis for a new implementation of OLE (OLE2).
 * The description of CORBA as being larger and requiring more code can probably be substantiated, but needs a source.

Also needs substantial cleanup work by somebody familiar with the subject. Text like "At the time PDO was [...]" with no indication of what time is being discussed. JulesH 18:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of this just needs to be stated better. Objective C is a has a minimalist object model, and as such it is simple to make simple and easily extensible distributed object implementations.  Whether any of this is desirable and well how such features work is something else that might be measured by different metrics depending on the context.  The claim that adoption of distributed object techologies was influenced by the languages used in available implementations seems sound but needs to be linked at least to solid product references from that time.  In retrospect it does seem pretty clear that C++ ended up in more commercially available object oriented software than Objective-C. -- M0llusk 19:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)