Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Qt Creator 3.4.0 Released

Posted by timothy on from the well-that's-cute dept.

jones_supa writes: Qt Creator 3.4.0 has been released with many new features. Qt Creator is a C/C++ IDE with specialized tools for developing Qt applications, and it works great for general-purpose projects as well. The new version comes with a C++ refactoring option to move function definitions out of a class declaration, auto-completion for signals and slots in Qt5-style connects, experimental Qt Test and Qt Quick Tests support in the Professional and Enterprise edition, support for 64-bit Android toolchains, and various other improvements. More details on the new version can be found in the official announcement and the changelog.

20 comments

  1. Wonder how hard they will press by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The "features only found in the for-pay" version is starting to ramp back up in Qt.

    The Nokia days were tumultuous, but at least they weren't trying to scrape money out of the developers.

    1. Re:Wonder how hard they will press by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of money to be made in failed efforts.

    2. Re:Wonder how hard they will press by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hard to blame them. Not including the community they appear to be the only company that contribute significant amount of new features.

  2. Qt is a dung heap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Qt is a dung heap. It has a balls ugly event model for which they must modify the C++ language. Stay away from it.

    1. Re:Qt is a dung heap by baka_toroi · · Score: 1

      What should we choose then?

    2. Re:Qt is a dung heap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recommend Fox or FLTK for Windows or BSD/LiGNUx.

      For Embedded, much harder question. We have used PEG successfully. It is hardly ideal, but vastly simpler for modest app

      Someday we will used a toolkit on top of OpenGL (ES) like GLUI. But that is hardly presentable in its current form.

    3. Re:Qt is a dung heap by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      so some day you will use a toolkit like qt on top of opengl, right? like tomorrow?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:Qt is a dung heap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Qt did all its widget (buttons, text, lists) rendering in OpenGL, I would. But, of course, it doesn't. OpenGL is bolted on awkwardly in the side and renders in separate buffers.The only toolkit I know that renders in it currently is Android in Java.

  3. Freedom at last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I didn't know the creator of qt was ever locked up.

  4. Did anyone else wonder when he was imprisoned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Or am I the only one who wondered what scandal I'd missed?

  5. Remind Me Again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would anyone want to put a function definition in a class declaration? As I recall, defining a function in the class declaration automatically makes it inline, but that can also be achieved by declaring the function inline.

    I also recall that inline functions can considerably increase the size of the resulting executable, so having large inline functions is a bad idea. If you define all your functions in the class declaration you'd end up with a very large program.

    So why would anyone want to have their function definition in the class declaration? Is this refactoring tool just to clean up after Java programmers don't know any better?

    1. Re:Remind Me Again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just faster to knock stuff out. Later, if what you are writing has real value, you refactor it into something more dignified. Until then you don't waste time indulging pedants that spend all day espousing their views on slashdot.

    2. Re:Remind Me Again... by GiganticLyingMouth · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone want to put a function definition in a class declaration? As I recall, defining a function in the class declaration automatically makes it inline, but that can also be achieved by declaring the function inline.

      I also recall that inline functions can considerably increase the size of the resulting executable, so having large inline functions is a bad idea. If you define all your functions in the class declaration you'd end up with a very large program.

      Declaring a function inline does not guarentee the function will actually be inlined -- the compiler decides whether it'll be inlined or not, and generally only small functions will be inlined, so if you're using a compiler made within the last decade, large inline functions are not a problem. What inline DOES do is modify the function's linkage specification, but that's a different matter.

  6. I had no idea by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

    I wasn't even aware the creator of QT had been incarcerated.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    1. Re:I had no idea by pr0nbot · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of a skate magazine I read in the 80s where people would write in to say they still hadn't received the free Nelson Mandela advertised on a previous issue's cover.

  7. Any good with Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, is it actually a good Android app making environment?

    1. Re:Any good with Android by balajeerc · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you meant to troll, but an answer is Yes!

  8. Best C++ IDE by goruka · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sorry to Visual Studio, Eclipse or Netbeans fans. For many of us, this simply the best C++ IDE around.

    It' s lightweight, packed the most popular features found in VS and Visual Assist, packed with great features of it' s own (Ctrl-K Locator), runs perfectly on Linux, Windows and OSX (for those of us who switch platform often it' s a bliss) , has high customizability and it's extremely friendly to custom build systems.
    All this with a very minimalist and straightforward user interface that never gets in the way (compared to the alternatives mentioned above).

    Oh and besides all that, also it's great if you like to develop for Qt. It's a shame that people associates naturally to it as if it's was the only use.. because they are missing out an incredible tool.

    1. Re:Best C++ IDE by balajeerc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Absolutely true. If you see how clunky Visual Studio and the new versions of XCode are (Xcode = 2.x was such an awesome IDE), and then use QtCreator, you are never going to go back to anything else. I find it surprising how hard it is for me to convince any of my colleagues to give it a try. In addition to the shame that people associate it to be something used only for Qt, is the shame that Qt itself is thought of as only a GUI. QtCore and QtNetwork make non-Qt applications a breeze to code in C++.

  9. Tabs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have they added tabs to the editor yet?