VIM or gedit depending on how I'm feeling that day. Gedit is actually quite nice for a code editor.

QtCreator, Code::Blocks, SciTe & bash.

Quote: Original post by Samith
I use Eclipse-CDT, too, I think. One of the versions of Eclipse is so slow that the entire program hangs for about 2 seconds when it does it's Intellisense (I know that's VS, but I'm talking about the Eclipse version of Intellisense here) thing.

I haven't done this with Eclipse CDT, but when I was using Eclipse in college for Java applications, we just turned off the intellisense delay. There's an option for it somewhere.

As a matter of fact, as I'm writing this I found the solution: Go to Winodow | Preferences | C\C++ | Editor | Content Assist | Delay and put it to 0. Hope that helps.

In regard to the QT Creator IDE, it looks great on the surface, but it stipulates that you have to license all the applications you make with it lGPL? That's terrible.

Quote: Original post by EnigmaticCoder
In regard to the QT Creator IDE, it looks great on the surface, but it stipulates that you have to license all the applications you make with it lGPL? That's terrible.

As far as I know this is not true. Where do you have this information from?

Quote: Original post by Kambiz

Quote: Original post by EnigmaticCoder
In regard to the QT Creator IDE, it looks great on the surface, but it stipulates that you have to license all the applications you make with it lGPL? That's terrible.

As far as I know this is not true. Where do you have this information from?

Now that you quote EnigmaticCoder, I am wondering, too: What you create is yours, even with strict GPL software.

Maybe he was confused by the licensing terms of the Qt-Framework itself, and understood it wrongly that the LGPL does not require you to release your code under LGPL when you link to LGPL software.

Quote: Original post by Kambiz

Quote: Original post by EnigmaticCoder
In regard to the QT Creator IDE, it looks great on the surface, but it stipulates that you have to license all the applications you make with it lGPL? That's terrible.

As far as I know this is not true. Where do you have this information from?

Presumably from this page.

Note that page is the licensing terms for your use of QT itself - not your application. It says, if you choose to use the LGPL license for QT, you must COMPLY with the terms of the LGPL license - it does not say you must release your software under it. The main implication of this is that you must dynamically link to the QT libraries.[1]

All the base Linux libraries are released under LGPL, as are things like SDL, and there are plenty of proprietary applications that use them.

That said, having that page from the licensing link on all the pages on that site is confusing.


[1] I'm not a lawyer, etc.

You're right dave j, that's the page that confused me.

Is there a way to use a custom makefile with qtcreator?

You can create project from generic makefiles, and if I remember rightly, QtCreator-devs claimed that it can also maintain that Makefile. But I haven't tested it myself.

This is indeed a problem that sucks to me, many IDEs come with their own non-portable makefile fluff (actually, this is the reason why I don't use the otherwise great code::blocks for picogen anymore).