From: NoMercy [mailto:nome...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, 5 April 2016 3:20 PM To: Curtis Mitch <mitch.cur...@theqtcompany.com> Cc: interest@qt-project.org Subject: Re: [Interest] CLion to replace QtCreator?
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Curtis Mitch <mitch.cur...@theqtcompany.com<mailto:mitch.cur...@theqtcompany.com>> wrote: From: NoMercy [mailto:nome...@gmail.com<mailto:nome...@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, 5 April 2016 2:34 PM To: Curtis Mitch <mitch.cur...@theqtcompany.com<mailto:mitch.cur...@theqtcompany.com>> Cc: interest@qt-project.org<mailto:interest@qt-project.org> Subject: Re: [Interest] CLion to replace QtCreator? On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Curtis Mitch <mitch.cur...@theqtcompany.com<mailto:mitch.cur...@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? That QtCreator is eons behind current technology and trends, isn't it very obvious? I would say just checkout features of ANY JetBrains product but you don't even intend to so you are in therefor denial. (Not personally you but many people who are objecting these) No one from The Qt Company had even replied before you told them that they’re in denial. The others who have replied are not employees of The Qt Company. They were also suggesting ways to achieve the things that you said were missing, not saying that there isn’t room for improvement. So, to summarise, you’re telling random people on a mailing list that they’re in denial over something that they never denied. 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. I'm not trying to shame anyone, I'm simply trying to wake people up from their sleep, trying to convince to look around instead of just accept what you already have... Then you need to reconsider the way you communicate, because the replies you’re getting are a direct result of talking like you’re owed the world, when, in reality, you’ve put in no effort (be it Jira suggestions or patches) nor paid a dollar towards what you’re asking. I would be hard pressed to think of a less constructive way of generating interest in the things that you want than wording an email in the manner you have. 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. If you accept that JetBrains products have some good features why not implement those SOME of good features to our QtCreator? It seems you’re not getting the point. 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”. The problem is the lacking things wont come without nothing short of a revolution. it would take eons just to write whats lacking in QtCreator (hence eons behind others) thats why I suggested a plugin or a fresh start with intellij platform. besides it is The Official Qt Company product we are talking about, while it is good to have the product as open source, relying solely to contributors for improvement aspecially a revolutionary and big ones as these is not right. Qt Company should step in, I believe they are making enough money... Oh dear. "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. see my previous comment I saw it. Regards, Emre Besirik
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
