Qt Designer plugin

[Valentyn Pavliuchenko]

2011/10/18 Andreas Pakulat <apaku at gmx.de>

> On 18.10.11 14:25:13, Valentyn Pavliuchenko wrote:
> > 2011/10/18 Andreas Pakulat <apaku at gmx.de>
> > > On 17.10.11 23:21:24, Valentyn Pavliuchenko wrote:
> > > > > But you shouldn't really use that plugin anyway, it may eat your
> > > > > children, dog, cats and money :) Use the standalone Qt designer.
> Its
> > > > > unmaintained since 2 years and never really worked properly.
> > > >
> > > > I don't care about my children, dogs, cats, money, etc. I just want
> > > designer
> > > > integration - this is a must for any modern IDE.
> > >
> > > No its not. I've been hacking quite some time now and the occassional
> > > need for a gui-designer comes up mostly when layouts don't behave
> > > logical or when needing a tool to quickly click together a mockup.
> > > Neither of the cases needs an integration into the IDE.
> > >
> >
> > That's for you. I don't say that everyone needs that, but it's the tool
> > required by many people.
>
> Again, any numbers to back that up?
>

I don't have any kind of reliable statistics for you.
If you can make a poll on that - it would be interesting.
Btw, what about a mega-poll on KDevelop usage and wishes?


> > > > P.S. Using separate Qt Designer sucks - first letter in IDE means
> > > > Integrated.
> > >
> > > But the word "Integrated" doesn't tell anything about what is
> integrated
> > > into the Development Environment ;P
> > >
> >
> > Ok, I will try to define an "ideal" IDE: when everything needed for
> > development is properly integrated without a functionality loss. Do you
> > agree with this definition? :)
>
> Sure, but that still doesn't include a GUI designer since its undefined
> what kind of 'development'. IDE doesn't necessarily mean "IDE for all
> kinds of development".
>

UI development is part of app development if application has non-trivial
GUI.
KDevelop is not targeted for console applications only, does it?


>  > Apart from that, there's no integration in the plugin. It merely adds a
> > > ton of actions/menus that look out of place and a bunch of toolviews
> > > that similarly are out of place. Not to mention that the workspace
> > > concept used by designer does not fit with kdevelop that good either.
> > > There's no kind of real integration of the designer, like being able to
> > > auto-complete in C++ for things set up in the .ui file. No support when
> > > renaming sth. in either C++ or the ui file for the other side. etc.
> > > Thats what Integrated really means in IDE, not that the IDE opens the
> > > file embedded instead of in a separate top-level window.
> >
> > I agree with you completely.
> > This is not a real integration, but embedded designer is still IMHO
> better
> > than external app. And can be treated as the starting point for real
> > integration.
>
> As history of the plugin tells, nobody wants to spend time on that,
> though part of the problem is that qt's designer code is not really
> designed for being integrated into arbitrary IDE's.
>

Looks like so.


>  > >  > I bet it's one of the main reasons why people use QtCreator instead
> of
> > > > KDevelop, even when it loses in language support.
> > >
> > > You have any evidence of that?
> >
> >
> > Yes, I saw the people that use Qt Creator because of that.
> >
> > FYI, I was recommending KDevelop where possible, but not everyone agreed.
> > Summarizing what I've heard from people - their reasons for using Qt
> Creator
> > instead of KDevelop are:
> > - qmake with its simplicity (cmake is complex for newbies)
>
> Indeed, qmake is very nice for small toy projects and (as Qt proves) it
> can even be used for large real-world projects. But that comes at a
> cost due to all the limitations qmake has. CMake or other cross-platform
> buildtools are usually much better suited, in particular when it comes
> to integrating external dependencies.
>

Of course.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kdevelop/attachments/20111018/e39e7b8d/attachment-0001.html>