Ok so I'm back at a crossroads: *[QT ]*is Eh-K. It's tedious, and it's limiting the company in one huge direction, remote interfacing. It's taking long amount of turn around time. Most of t...
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