>>COM is definately not dead, it's been renamed .Net and additional features have been added. Last year at this time, .Net was called COM+ 2.0.
>
>Hi, Craig.
>
>I agree about COM being alive and kicking, but I can't agree about that .Net is COM under a different name!
>
>.Net components are a total different kind of beast. They are binary different, and they are based on different assumptions. For one, .Net components need the CLR to run, and because of that, the typing is different, and all the messaging too.
>
>That's why you have to wrap a COM component to use it inside the framework and viceversa.


Yup, it is. At this time last year, it was called COM+ 2.0.