5 ms·

From my experience using Qt, the MOC wasn't a pain point for me. All the generations that I saw were very straightforward and I never had to mess with it. That

From my experience using Qt, the MOC wasn't a pain point for me. All the generations that I saw were very straightforward and I never had to mess with it. That's just my experience though, so I'd love to hear where people have found shortcomings. Also, I am happy to see this project and may try it out nonetheless. Always happy to see work around Qt.

arketyp 7y ago
The convenience of the MOC is its raison d'être. The minor pain point for me is practically being forced to use the Qt Creator IDE. I'm happy to see a possible best of both worlds solution like this.
- slavik81 7y ago
  Why do you feel forced to use Qt Creator? I used Visual Studio for years, and these days I just use Vim. While Qt Creator is a great IDE, it has never felt necessary to me.
- likeliv 7y ago
  No need to use Qt creator. Most C++ build systems support moc out of the box, or with minor adjustments.
  - ailideex 7y ago
    I was trying to figure out how to do MOC from gnu make when I came across this, the only other option I saw was to run qmake and then run that generated makefile from my makefile. Of those two options verdigris seemed to be the better choice to me.
    - marmaduke 7y ago
      https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/moc.html#writing-make-rules-for-invoking-moc https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/moc.html#writing-make-rules-for-invok... Like that?
      - ailideex 7y ago
        Thanks, I guess I should have kept on looking.
    - ahartmetz 7y ago
      CMake also has automoc built-in. You need to do next to nothing for moc support with CMake.
  - ahartmetz 7y ago
    Qt Creator doesn't even get involved in the build once it has started qmake - a qmake .pro[ject] file is nothing like a Visual Studio project file. You are supposed to make edits other than adding or removing source files by hand. So you really don't need Qt Creator for moc. Note that qmake is generally easiest for tiny programs such as bug reproducers. For anything nontrivial, it's better to use CMake. Most advanced functionality in qmake is undocumented and weird. Qt itself is moving to CMake with Qt 6.
- berkut 7y ago
  Most C++ build systems have support for moc generation - CMake even has CMAKE_AUTOMOC which can automatically do it for you with no further intervention with some caveats.
- tjoff 7y ago
  I've coded QT for a few years. Have never even opened the QT Creator IDE.
  - cheez 7y ago
    I used to do this too but I started using the form designer and uic + uiloader and it was a nice boost to productivity for creating lame but necessary dialogs.
- bfrog 7y ago
  Yeah, I've never personally used creator... with a decade of Qt usage
ahartmetz 7y ago
I know the author. The project is part tech demo for fun, part shut up the people who complain about moc. And no, moc isn't a pain point in practice.
- ailideex 7y ago
  https://github.com/woboq/verdigris#who-uses-verdigris- https://github.com/woboq/verdigris#who-uses-verdigris-
  - ahartmetz 7y ago
    I never said that it doesn't work. Okay, maybe tech demo sounds like it doesn't. It does work.
    - ailideex 7y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_demonstration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_demonstration > A technology demonstration or demonstrator model, informally known as a tech demo, is a prototype, rough example or an otherwise incomplete version of a conceivable product or future system, put together as proof of concept with the primary purpose of showcasing the possible applications, feasibility, performance and method of an idea for a new technology. Verdigris has been developed and maintained now for over 4 years. Not only does it work - it has unit tests, CI and issues are addressed by the maintainers. While verdigris does demonstrate that something is technically possible, so does Apache httpd - does not make Apache httpd a tech demo.
      - ogoffart 7y ago
        It started out as a tech demo. Then people started using it and reported bugs and features request. So support for MSVC was added, and version 1.0 was released. It is relatively low maintenance given that Qt maintain binary compatibility anyway (Qt 6 will be another story).
        7y ago

arketyp 7y ago

The convenience of the MOC is its raison d'être. The minor pain point for me is practically being forced to use the Qt Creator IDE. I'm happy to see a possible best of both worlds solution like this.

slavik81 7y ago
Why do you feel forced to use Qt Creator? I used Visual Studio for years, and these days I just use Vim. While Qt Creator is a great IDE, it has never felt necessary to me.
likeliv 7y ago
No need to use Qt creator. Most C++ build systems support moc out of the box, or with minor adjustments.
- ailideex 7y ago
  I was trying to figure out how to do MOC from gnu make when I came across this, the only other option I saw was to run qmake and then run that generated makefile from my makefile. Of those two options verdigris seemed to be the better choice to me.
  - marmaduke 7y ago
    https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/moc.html#writing-make-rules-for-invoking-moc https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/moc.html#writing-make-rules-for-invok... Like that?
    - ailideex 7y ago
      Thanks, I guess I should have kept on looking.
  - ahartmetz 7y ago
    CMake also has automoc built-in. You need to do next to nothing for moc support with CMake.
- ahartmetz 7y ago
  Qt Creator doesn't even get involved in the build once it has started qmake - a qmake .pro[ject] file is nothing like a Visual Studio project file. You are supposed to make edits other than adding or removing source files by hand. So you really don't need Qt Creator for moc. Note that qmake is generally easiest for tiny programs such as bug reproducers. For anything nontrivial, it's better to use CMake. Most advanced functionality in qmake is undocumented and weird. Qt itself is moving to CMake with Qt 6.
berkut 7y ago
Most C++ build systems have support for moc generation - CMake even has CMAKE_AUTOMOC which can automatically do it for you with no further intervention with some caveats.
tjoff 7y ago
I've coded QT for a few years. Have never even opened the QT Creator IDE.
- cheez 7y ago
  I used to do this too but I started using the form designer and uic + uiloader and it was a nice boost to productivity for creating lame but necessary dialogs.
bfrog 7y ago
Yeah, I've never personally used creator... with a decade of Qt usage

ahartmetz 7y ago

I know the author. The project is part tech demo for fun, part shut up the people who complain about moc. And no, moc isn't a pain point in practice.

ailideex 7y ago
https://github.com/woboq/verdigris#who-uses-verdigris- https://github.com/woboq/verdigris#who-uses-verdigris-
- ahartmetz 7y ago
  I never said that it doesn't work. Okay, maybe tech demo sounds like it doesn't. It does work.
  - ailideex 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_demonstration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_demonstration > A technology demonstration or demonstrator model, informally known as a tech demo, is a prototype, rough example or an otherwise incomplete version of a conceivable product or future system, put together as proof of concept with the primary purpose of showcasing the possible applications, feasibility, performance and method of an idea for a new technology. Verdigris has been developed and maintained now for over 4 years. Not only does it work - it has unit tests, CI and issues are addressed by the maintainers. While verdigris does demonstrate that something is technically possible, so does Apache httpd - does not make Apache httpd a tech demo.
    - ogoffart 7y ago
      It started out as a tech demo. Then people started using it and reported bugs and features request. So support for MSVC was added, and version 1.0 was released. It is relatively low maintenance given that Qt maintain binary compatibility anyway (Qt 6 will be another story).
      - 7y ago