MB>
  > Enabling an application or library for SOM is basically just tedious work,
  > involving writing the wrapper specifications in Object
  > Interface Definition Language (OIDL) and then running them
  > through the OIDL processor.  Metaware and IBM C compilers
  > offer "Direct-to-SOM" which mostly automates this process,
  > but competitive compilers do not.  Watcom does provide the
  > OIDL processing tools, but you have to write the wrappers
  > yourself.  Writing OIDL wrapper specifications is roughly
  > comparable to writing C header files.
MB>

  You're showing your age there, Mike.  OIDL went the say of all flesh
  with the introduction of SOM 2.x.  It's IDL these days.

  I *certainly* wouldn't encourage people to *start* by writing OIDL.

  Incidentally, for those interested, I do include a full discussion of
  SOM, the SOMObjects Developers' Toolkit, and DirectToSOM C++, in the
  archive of the Pros and Cons list.  It's one of the "value added" extras
  included in the archive that I don't publish in the echo.

  > JdeBP  Keeper of the <
   > Highly Unofficial FIDONET OS2PROG C++ Compiler Pros and Cons List <
   > Available as PROSCONS.ZIP via File Request from FIDONET#2:440/4.0 <
___
 X MegaMail 2.10 #0:
--- Maximus/2 3.01