Wow, sounds like a pretty big undertaking. Are you behind schedule?
I'm learning that anything that makes money is ON schedule.
It's a terrible way to work :(
The thing is, the QT side is still working forward. What I want to do is just show them a sample of what I could do, which would then halt Qt development, and go full force on .NET. But I know, the minute I show them "goto 10.0.0.5/" and they see even 1% of their applications web accessible even with just some garbage web interface they would pass out.
Did you ever figure out if you could use PHP or Ruby to hook up your C++ libs?
Not really. It just sounds like that's not where they focus their attention too. And I haven't had time to look into it. That's two huge areas I know nothing about, Ruby, and Rails, then add that with trying to interface with C/C++, that might be a little too much of a learning curve for profit.
And that's why I want .NET, I know it, and I'm comfortable with it, and I've actually got code that consumes older code, which is amazing
good points. i just usually get scared when people try to get microsoft technologies working with custom libraries on unix systems. don't be scared, though, chris, don't be scared
yeah. im scared
Only thing pushing me to consider this is that everything is public standard. It's not like novell is trying to reverse engineer .NET. There are certain technologies that MS uses with .NET that aren't published standards, but the parts that are, are hugely beneficial.
EDIT: LOLLERS too
I don't know what kind of app you're working on, but rails is really for database-driven web applications, pretty much talking directly to the database through a very thin model layer (ActiveRecord, part of Rails) that gets its structure from the database table schema. so if you're trying to web-enable an existing C\C++ library, then rails is definitely NOT the way to go.
Exactly my thoughts and what I was trying to say, but you said it ina much more concise and intelligent manner
The C++ library that I have had our team split apart to me more of a library and less of an application is actually our service/bussiness layer. It defines how we serialize data, how it gets processed, etc. You guys know this, but from a different programatic point of view.
In a Microsoft model, this business layer is usually in DLLs, in Active objects, or the new way being .NET components and web services. Not only can these components be staticly or dynamically included into a project, but they can have a communications interface to them seperately. (Yes Java, in various ways).
With .NET and MSIL I can get my libraries to talk on the same level of speech as the website front end, thus providing a very easy way to pass around memory specific structures and resources, and make use of the original business logic without code rewrite.
otherwise, php, perl, ruby, I'm going to have to make all these classes/functions that converts MyObject to MyObjectWithNoPointers and Orange to an Apple to get them to talk without tons of hassle (aka. marshalling)
yeah, that sounds horrible (the marshalling part).
go with mono
Huge undertaking? Eh yeah, but at least the products I'm dealing with in this line up is supported....
Mono has support
Suse linux has support
Both made by Novell
So I feel safe there.
So I get to just worry about code. instead of "Oh QT doesnt support, this, QT doesnt do this, QT has no calander picker? ALKDJFLJSDKLFJ"