[Interest] CLion to replace QtCreator?

Curtis Mitch mitch.curtis at theqtcompany.com
Tue Apr 5 14:55:22 CEST 2016

From: NoMercy [mailto:nomercy at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 5 April 2016 2:34 PM
To: Curtis Mitch <mitch.curtis at theqtcompany.com>
Cc: interest at qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Interest] CLion to replace QtCreator?

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Curtis Mitch <mitch.curtis at theqtcompany.com<mailto:mitch.curtis at theqtcompany.com>> wrote:
> I’m sorry to say this but QtCreator is actually eons behind the current IDE trends and technology :(

> people are practically begging jetbrains to save themselves from QtCreator (no offense intended but this is the case for many people)

> And I think Qt Company should just get rid of the denial of the world start to see beyond horizon and do something, revolutionize QtCreator or just do something like Google did for android studio and embrace/deal with jetbrains ide and fork a CLion custimized for Qt development. I dont see any other way :(

Hahaaa! I especially like the “I don’t see any other way” part. Fantastic. Also, very, very cringe-worthy. Telling a company it’s in denial because it doesn’t fork your favourite IDE is... ridiculous. It sounds like you haven’t actually attempted to properly use Qt Creator (e.g. by saying that Locator “only searches for filenames”), and don’t intend on putting in any work yourself, even though it’s an open source project.

Hey look I didn't start to offend anybody about their work, but just get some realistic here;

I’m not a Qt Creator developer, but if I were, it would be pretty funny to be told I was in denial. What are they in denial about, exactly?

1. Have you even try to read people's comments on that link I've shared? (Yes they are practically begging JetBrains)

I did read the bug report, yep. So what if they’re begging JetBrains? Rather than try to shame developers into converting one product into another, why not contribute specific features that you think are missing? Tell your friends commenting on that bug report that they can write a plugin for Qt Creator, and that it’s all open source.

2. Have you ever used ANY JetBrains product before? for how long? then you'll see there the huge difference between JOY of coding and JOB of coding.

No, and I have no plans to. I’m not arguing that JetBrains’ product doesn’t have good features.

3. And yes I don't see any other way IF you want to be part of the solution instead of being in denial!

Again, can you tell me what I’m in denial of? If I find something lacking with Qt Creator, I file a suggestion or fix it myself if it’s easy enough. That’s being part of the solution. Doing what you’re doing in the way you’re doing it is textbook “being part of the problem”.

"and don’t intend on putting in any work yourself, even though it’s an open source project."
I would put my work if it would mean something; trying to make such revolutionarising move on the existing QtCreator would practically re-writing it all from scratch while there are more convinient ways such as moving to intellij platform or just simply wrting a plugin for CLion maybe?

Why do you have to re-write Creator from scratch?

If you have a problem with the auto completion in Creator (or any other specific problem), file a bug report.

If you want there to be a plugin for CLion, write one. I’d bet a large sum of money that it’s not going to happen any other way. Plenty of external developers have contributed fixes and even entire plugins to Creator.

Emre Besirik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20160405/abe12e0a/attachment.html>

More information about the Interest mailing list