[secondcoming]

QTCreator is one of the best C++ IDEs for Linux. I'd imagine Visual Studio is better but I haven't developed on Windows in years.

[DannyBee]

I mean, i understand it, and i'm sure it's great for their ecosystem. I'm sure it integrates well with UI designers, etc.

But i'm also really not that interested in using a library specific IDE at that level.

Because QT is not all i do, etc.

For folks who do, i'm sure it's great.

For C++ IDEs on linux, CLion works great. VSCode is reasonable too.

[lultimouomo]

QtCreator works with non-Qt, CMake based projects, has a feature set which is very competitive with CLion's and it's about a billion times faster.

[DannyBee]

I get that, but that's also clearly not the market they are targeting or customers they want, etc :)

Otherwise, Clion would be dead by now in favor of it!

[dekhn]

Nobody is forcing you to use their IDE. Just use VSCode.

Also, for your complaint about the size of the SDK: most people download the Python bindings (often through conda) and don't do compilation at all (I write interactive applications using QtPy, python slowness isn't an issue). But also: you're not the target audience.

[spacechild1]

I use Qt Creator for all my C++ projects and I am not doing any Qt work.

[secondcoming]

I use it to build non-QT code with cmake.

[DesiLurker]

That is besides the point parent poster is making though. are they also making it so that you cannot use the GPL software w/o the IDE? if so that would be a violation of GPL.

[LtWorf]

He's just complaining about the installer of the pre built binaries that asks for an account.

You can download sources and build them yourself. Which is what linux distributions do.

[DannyBee]

I'm complaining that they make it hard for people to want to try it by making it huge and unwieldy :)

(QT is more than linux-only. In fact, that's the whole point. They could simplify it greatly if it was linux-only.)

[lpcvoid]

CLion is way better for C++ on Linux, IMO.