4 ms·

Here getting a nice IDE installed is just a single "zypper install qt-creator".

Asooka 7y ago
You need a license for qt-creator if you want to work on commercial software (or that was the case last time we checked about a year or two ago). There might be exceptions for your case, do check, because it is a nice product. Other paid IDE alternatives are CLion, which I hear is excellent, as well as SlickEdit, which is closer to an editor than a full IDE, but does offer building, debugging, completion. Free alternatives would be Visual Studio Code, which is pretty ok even for C++, or KDevelop, which almost kind of works, or SpaceVim / SpacEmacs and about a week of learning how to use it. I'm in the final camp, since basically every serious C/C++ dev on Linux has a Vim or Emacs setup they've built themselves that does about 90% of what Visual Studio gives you out of the box, with some things better and others worse. It can work pretty well, but you have to understand it's not VS and it works in its own way. If you have the money, you can buy a good IDE for Linux. Otherwise, learning to make your own out of high-level building blocks is also a useful skill, but takes a little bit of time. Personally the first time I had to write C for Linux out of college it did take me about a week before I was up to speed with it (but I was already sort of familiar with vim as a pure editor).
- redlynx 7y ago
  Could you provide a reference to why you think you require a commercial license for QtCreator to work on commercial software? The core application is licensed under (L)GPL. The commercial version adds a few specific features. I have been using QtCreator for a long time and as far as I know there's never been any sort of "cannot be used for commercial software" clause.
  - rhinoceraptor 7y ago
    I think they're mistaking Qt Creator with Qt itself. Certainly if you're using Qt in your application, you need a license or release as L?GPL. The IDE/editor has nothing to do with it.
    - KingMachiavelli 7y ago
      Based off of Qt's comparison between their commercial and open source licenses, you would only absolutely need the commercial license if you were making modifications to Qt itself instead of linking to the shared libraries. Even in that case you could simply publish your Qt modifications as GPL seperetly. https://www.qt.io/download https://www.qt.io/download
    - detaro 7y ago
      LGPL (and not GPL) specifically means that you do not need to release your application under an open license. Small parts of Qt for specialized applications are under GPL, and abiding LGPL in embedded hardware is hard, but for normal desktop software it's not a problem.
      - rhinoceraptor 7y ago
        If you statically link to QT, that’s a derivative work so you need to release as GPL or buy a proprietary license.
        detaro 7y ago
        That's why approximately nobody links Qt statically on desktop systems. (technically you can also share compiled, proprietarily licensed object files a customer can re-link themselves, but I suspect that's even rarer) I should maybe have clarified that above what obligations the LGPL does bring, but that case basically matters only on mobile and embedded.
- Avery3R 7y ago
  VS code is more of a text editor, not an ide.
  - meko 7y ago
    Those lines have become increasingly blurred.
  - chupasaurus 7y ago
    I.e. a browser.
- rhinoceraptor 7y ago
  This is like saying all software written with Emacs needs to be GPL.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    I mean... that's a valid analogy - but still, RMS would be absolutely for this.
- dejaime 7y ago
  You can use the IDE without problems. It's like Gimp, for an example. It is GPL, but you are not incorporating the software itself. Even though I would argue QtCreator is only bearable when working with Qt.
- detaro 7y ago
  > You need a license for qt-creator if you want to work on commercial software No, you do not need a commercial license for creator, neither did you at other points in the past few years.

You need a license for qt-creator if you want to work on commercial software (or that was the case last time we checked about a year or two ago). There might be exceptions for your case, do check, because it is a nice product. Other paid IDE alternatives are CLion, which I hear is excellent, as well as SlickEdit, which is closer to an editor than a full IDE, but does offer building, debugging, completion. Free alternatives would be Visual Studio Code, which is pretty ok even for C++, or KDevelop, which almost kind of works, or SpaceVim / SpacEmacs and about a week of learning how to use it. I'm in the final camp, since basically every serious C/C++ dev on Linux has a Vim or Emacs setup they've built themselves that does about 90% of what Visual Studio gives you out of the box, with some things better and others worse. It can work pretty well, but you have to understand it's not VS and it works in its own way. If you have the money, you can buy a good IDE for Linux. Otherwise, learning to make your own out of high-level building blocks is also a useful skill, but takes a little bit of time. Personally the first time I had to write C for Linux out of college it did take me about a week before I was up to speed with it (but I was already sort of familiar with vim as a pure editor).

redlynx 7y ago
Could you provide a reference to why you think you require a commercial license for QtCreator to work on commercial software? The core application is licensed under (L)GPL. The commercial version adds a few specific features. I have been using QtCreator for a long time and as far as I know there's never been any sort of "cannot be used for commercial software" clause.
- rhinoceraptor 7y ago
  I think they're mistaking Qt Creator with Qt itself. Certainly if you're using Qt in your application, you need a license or release as L?GPL. The IDE/editor has nothing to do with it.
  - KingMachiavelli 7y ago
    Based off of Qt's comparison between their commercial and open source licenses, you would only absolutely need the commercial license if you were making modifications to Qt itself instead of linking to the shared libraries. Even in that case you could simply publish your Qt modifications as GPL seperetly. https://www.qt.io/download https://www.qt.io/download
  - detaro 7y ago
    LGPL (and not GPL) specifically means that you do not need to release your application under an open license. Small parts of Qt for specialized applications are under GPL, and abiding LGPL in embedded hardware is hard, but for normal desktop software it's not a problem.
    - rhinoceraptor 7y ago
      If you statically link to QT, that’s a derivative work so you need to release as GPL or buy a proprietary license.
      - detaro 7y ago
        That's why approximately nobody links Qt statically on desktop systems. (technically you can also share compiled, proprietarily licensed object files a customer can re-link themselves, but I suspect that's even rarer) I should maybe have clarified that above what obligations the LGPL does bring, but that case basically matters only on mobile and embedded.
Avery3R 7y ago
VS code is more of a text editor, not an ide.
- meko 7y ago
  Those lines have become increasingly blurred.
- chupasaurus 7y ago
  I.e. a browser.
rhinoceraptor 7y ago
This is like saying all software written with Emacs needs to be GPL.
- munk-a 7y ago
  I mean... that's a valid analogy - but still, RMS would be absolutely for this.
dejaime 7y ago
You can use the IDE without problems. It's like Gimp, for an example. It is GPL, but you are not incorporating the software itself. Even though I would argue QtCreator is only bearable when working with Qt.
detaro 7y ago
> You need a license for qt-creator if you want to work on commercial software No, you do not need a commercial license for creator, neither did you at other points in the past few years.