[Qt-creator] Visual Studio Compiler/Debugger support ?

[Axel Jäger]

I'm wondering why everyone is insisted on using the VC-express- 
Compiler although it does not have some optimizations of the  
professional compiler and you can download the "Windows SDK" that  
contains the compiler of the professional edition for free.

See: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/bb980924.aspx

It might make more sense to focus on this because it does come without  
an IDE, doesnt want to install an SQL-server express and so on.

Axel


Am 09.03.2009 um 08:38 schrieb Andre Poenitz:

> On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 12:18:13AM -0300, Wilton sampaio wrote:
>> Well,
>> Let try to shape my question to real English.
>>
>> The MinGW for windows IS with development HALTED , the latest  
>> version is
>> uses a ancient GCC and GDB build. The tdragon 4.3 builds are Non- 
>> usable.
>
> Could you be so kind and elaborate a bit on that? There have been a  
> few
> messages - sent both to the list and privately - that tdragon's gcc  
> build
> is the greatest thing since sliced bread and that it is the one and  
> only
> thing that has to been supported. Now you label it as "non-usable".
>
> For a non-Windows person this pretty much looks like whatever is done,
> there will be someone very unhappy and vocal about it.
>
>> [...]
>> I prefer the second option, and as i known , the Visual C++ Express  
>> comes
>> with a fullfetured compiler and debugger, and it can compile Qt fine.
>> And qouting Qt developers(
>> http://labs.trolltech.com/blogs/2007/09/18/qtwindows-open-source-edition-to-support-vs-express/)
>> : "The Visual Studio Express environment is just so much superior and
>> easier to use for existing Windows developers compared to what MinGW
>> provides."
>
> I understand that refers to the environment, not the compiler  
> (alone?),
> and stems from a time where there was no Qt Creator on Windows. I also
> see that the third comment to it is "Huh?? Who cares about Visual  
> Studio
> Express? Eclipse rocks!" - so also in this case the asserted  
> superiority
> does not go undisputed by the public.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I am just trying to understand the situation.
> Declaring three or four systems on Windows "primary" does not look  
> like
> a good investment of Creator's core development resources.
>
> On the Linux side (which is often chastised for being "fragmented")  
> such
> "problems" are typically solved by the distributions. If there is
> interest in having some software on a certain distribution, somebody
> will just create a package, often without even telling the makers of  
> the
> software. And that's fine, it's how it is supposed to be.  I wonder
> whether this system could work on Windows, too...
>
> Andre'
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qt-creator mailing list
> Qt-creator at trolltech.com
> http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator