On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Geronimo Ma. Hernandez <geronimo...@gmx.com> wrote: > On Wednesday 30 May 2012 - 19:50:53, Vojtech Kral wrote: >> On 2012-05-30 19:02, Geronimo Ma. Hernandez wrote: >> > On Mittwoch 30 Mai 2012, Vojtech Kral wrote: >> >> On 2012-05-30 15:37, Geronimo Ma. Hernandez wrote: >> >> >> >> I think you misunderstood, the support is rather done in such a way >> >> that the IDE drives an underlying scripted build system rather than >> >> making all the compiler and linker calls by itself. >> > >> > So what? That's a reasonable implementation detail, that no user ever >> > should care about. >> >> The user should definitely care about that, it's their build system >> setup, importance of which in C++ I stated earlier. > > Well, quite sure, I did not get the point. > > If scripting is used to decouple QtCreator from external tools, so its common > business and an implementation detail, that no user should care about. And no > user should ever touch that scripts. > > If you are right, and the scripts are part of the build system, then my > understanding of the latter statement was wrong. Than the application does not > use scripts for decoupling and the user has to care about those scripts for > sure. > So where's the difference to drive external tools directly? > >> I think that if all that effort you put in writing to the >> mailing list you put in actually reading up on qmake or cmake, >> you would probably have mastered a good deal of it by now. > > Dear sir, you did not get rid of my intention. > > I'm not the focus of my writing! > I write, to give food for thinking, to improve QtCreator. I believe, that a > different point of view (like I'm not a C++ developer) might help on > improvement or just let somebody start to think different. > The reason for my heavy usage of the capitalized "i" is, that I can speak only > for myself, for my way of thinking, for my believing. To point out, that I > don't speak in common, I use phrases like "I think ..." > ... but again: I'm not the focus of my writing! > > Respect to the build-functionality, I would categorize IDEs in 3 levels like > this: > 1.) entry level: > an IDE can only manage projects created by itself, no import for existing > projects created by other IDEs > > 2.) mid level: > an IDE can manage projects created by itself and offers an import possibility, > where projects created by other IDEs will be read and translated to the build > system used by the IDE - or in other words: this IDE can read multiple build- > systems, but write-support is limited. > > 3.) professional level: > this kind of IDE can manage any kind of project - no matter, which IDE created > the project, or whether it has been created manually. It has read and write > support for a lot of build-systems and is able to continue using the build- > system of the imported project. > > So according to this levels, I consider QtCreator a good (if not already the > best) entry-level IDE and I wanted to send some triggers so that QtCreator > could raise one level and become a mid-level IDE. > > kind regards > > Gero > _______________________________________________ > Qt-creator mailing list > Qt-creator@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
By your definitions, Creator is "mid-level". It's extensible with plugins and it already has support for cmake and generic makefiles, though with limited write support. It wouldn't be too hard to add support for Code::Blocks, and possible to add xcodeproj or vsproj (though building xcodeproj with external tools would require running on Mac to begin with). All it really needs is someone to champion a given project format, and it can be done. /s/ Adam _______________________________________________ Qt-creator mailing list Qt-creator@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
