KDevelop4 Beta 3 Released

mikesd81 writes "KDE announced on May 30th the third public beta of KDevelop4. Some new features include a new code-writing assistant, a new documentation plugin showing you the API docs for Qt and KDE APIs, a reworked Mercurial plugin, and a rewrite of the classbrowser plugin. Two plugins from the KDevelop source, QMake support and Qt Designer integration, were let go and moved to the KDE Playground area."

Comments

Fantastic

[12357bd]

Maybe the best free C/C++ IDE. For other languages old & true Netbeans or Eclipse without a doubt, but for C and C++, it's the only one me.

Thanks!

kdevelop is great

[iplayfast]

Last week when everyone was talking about their favorite ide's I kept thinking that kdevelop should have this or has that.

It's the one IDE that I've used for Linux development (besides vi) that I've used for years. I'm looking forward to the new class browser.

Watcom C++

[moon3]

I love KDevelop/GCC, but it is also nice to have some options. The massive reliance on GCC is becoming tiresome, especially if it still under performs, newest Intel's and Microsoft compilers are faster and produce better code..

The good old Watcom was rock solid compiler producing one of the best binaries at the time, also comes with good debugger and even decent IDE. It is open source now, see www.openwatcom.org. It has a stellar source base and potential to spawn another cross platform compiler to compete with GCC. It would be nice if we could swap GCC for something else.. This great and promising project needs developers badly!

Do not forget, it is Watcom that compiled and gave us Duke Nukem, Doom, Termial Velocity, Frontier and all the DOS4GW titles.

Re:Watcom C++

[Kjella]

You know, the only people that I know that seriously dislike GCC are the commercial compiler venders. It's not perfect, but it has a major advantage that no other compiler has -- it frees the developer from worrying about vendor specific compiler issues when writing cross-platform code. One less thing to worry about.

To me it's basicly like this - either the compiler's performance hardly matters at all, the code's performance is restricted by user speed, network speed or whatever OR it's incredibly performance oriented. If it's incredibly performance oriented, typically someone will make an assembler library that does that as efficiently as at all possible. Compiler performance is for the inbetweens where it's sorta important but not important enough. If you hit a performance bottleneck, very often it's a higher-level code issue that's better fixed there. The number of real-world cases where you really say "the code is good, the compiler's stupid and it's important yet not too important and changing the compiler is the difference between acceptable and not acceptable" is really low. There's a million things I could take issue wtih when it comes to open source, but gcc is not one of them.