On the wiki it’s very hard to understand why we need these things. I understood that for the interaction of different software components (for example, one part works in Java, the other in C #).

I can solve all such tasks that I can imagine using HTTP or RabbitMQ. It is clear that if the task will support communication using Thrift, COM, CORBA or STOMP will apply. But are there any other uses?

Closed due to the fact that the question is too general for the participants Roman C , AK ♦ , Edward , VTT , Andrey NOP 12 Mar at 14:24 .

Please correct the question so that it describes the specific problem with sufficient detail to determine the appropriate answer. Do not ask a few questions at once. See “How to ask a good question?” For clarification. If the question can be reformulated according to the rules set out in the certificate , edit it .

  • Cases a lot, what is meant? - Roman C
  • MGM You understand that once there was no rabbit, and there was only COM? And then came CORBA? And “I'm doing this on such a technology now” was impossible twenty years ago? And some things have taken root in large systems, they have considerable inertia and nobody will change them, because it works, and there is no business need to throw out a bunch of man-hours. - AK ♦
  • Roman C, no case. There is only a desire to understand why we need these names. Perhaps there is a good article that will cover the topic. - AndreyMagnificent
  • Your question is quite general and non-specific for so, true. Even if you break it up into separate questions (a lump separately, a korba separately, etc.) - AK ♦
  • AK, you want to say that this is just legacy and now there are already things that completely replace these technologies (it is possible to say about each case separately)? - AndreyMagnificent

1 answer 1

Explanation of the variety of tools for solving the same problem:

Each technology solves a specific problem for its time.

For example, Microsoft came up with COM solving the problem of interaction of modules in different PL. Years passed and someone looked at what COM evolved into and came up with his decision with an eye to COM's problems.

The same topic with the appearance of the language code: the authors of C # looked at the problems of C ++ and Java and learned these errors when designing their own language.

Nafig need it?

No one in their right mind will rewrite what works => backward compatibility is needed.

All are committed to the paradigm that reusable code is cool.