Hi, On 2018 M12 15, Sat 14:49:16 CET Ray Donnelly wrote: > On Sat, Dec 15, 2018, 6:35 AM Alexander Neundorf <neund...@kde.org wrote: > > On 2018 M10 30, Tue 18:33:03 CET NIkolai Marchenko wrote: > > > > Thus this investment would be at the expense of other things we’d like > > > > to > > > > > do, like improving our IDE, working on rearchitecting and cleaning up > > > our > > > core frameworks for Qt 6 or the design tooling we are currently > > > investing > > > into. The Qt Company believes that those other investments are more > > > important for the future of Qt than our choice of build tool. > > > > > > I don't understand. Will it not be a return on the investment when > > > people > > > use Qt "because their build tool is the best around" ? > > > Project files are at the root of every project. There are all sorts of > > > > good > > > > > IDEs around but ppl mostly are forced to use CMAKE which no one seems to > > > like. > > > > I do like it :-P > > CMake can generate not only Makefiles and ninja files, but also project > > files for > > IDEs (Visual Studio, XCode, Eclipse). > > With the addition of "server mode" 2 or 3 years ago or so now also a tight > > integration with IDEs is possible. I think QtCreator and/or KDevelop make > > use > > of this. > > So, when using cmake the developer is free to chose whether he wants to > > use > > simply an editor and make/ninja, or a full IDE. > > In my experience with cmake any non trivial implementation only tends to > work with the generator(s) the developer tested against most recently.
Which features are not working for which generators ? As far as I know the ASM support may not really be working with the Visual Studio generators. Is there more ? IMO those are issues/bugs, and developers who want to use these generators should put some effort into getting this fixed. Alex _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
