[Interest] CLion to replace QtCreator?

Prav pr12og2 at programist.ru
Tue Apr 5 17:40:03 CEST 2016

Does anyone here think that discussion of this question in current way would not help anyone?
We are programmer ... not philosophers. So ideas like "eons away from QtC" is non-understandable
(like infinity) so not profitable for our lives.

As I can get:
There are some things which make some people feel not so comfortable comparing to what they feel
when they work in another IDE. And those people want QtC be better. So why would not we agree
that those who feel bad with some aspects of QtC would first create are bug-report or feature-suggestion
at https://bugreports.qt.io/ site and ONLY after that say what he misses from QtC here.

I would also suggest to make a list of those things which make QtC not as good as CLion
... somewhere ...  for example at https://wiki.qt.io/
Everybody who feels missing features would be welcome to add its bug-report (or feature-request) to this
list. And that would give everybody clear understanding what does "eons away" means.
This list can also play the role of "list of little shame" for Qt-developers so that they would be more active
to try to fix those bugs or implement feature requests (which is as I can get is the main purpose for someone
to say that QtC is "eons away from CLion").

As the result this discussion would benefit those who implement QtC (because they have exact questions) and
those who ask QtC developer be more active in making them feel better in process usage of QtC.

I am not in QtC fun-club.
For example my bug
was reported like 1 year ago and it says that renaming refactoring can change the code so that it
is hard (almost impossible) to revert it back to “compilable” state. I am always in fear during every renaming refactoring in QtC
(because project-wide renaming refactoring is irreversible in QtC so Ctrl-Z would not help ;) ).
And I really do not know where to see how valuable this bug in priority list for fixes for next QtC release ! :(
I feel problems too.

Nor I am against QtC. Because it integrates   GUI editor   and   help for Qt functions better than CLion or VisualStudio.
I like its "several split"-idea with shortcuts like "follow symbol in the next split" (which is absent in VisualStudio or CLion … as I know).

So maybe we better to discuss how exactly we would make flow of critics from CLion users to be precise
and helpful for both-sides? And only after setting rules for that we would start discuss critics itself ...
because after that there would be real things to discuss ... but not only heap of opinions in our mailing boxes.

Sorry for being so detailed in this letter. I was so wondered that we keep this long discussion in such unprofitable way.

More information about the Interest mailing list