Fuck Linux, not a single decent C/C++ IDE (I'm not talking about fucking minimal editors), Codeblocks: what the fuck is this ugly shit?, Kdevelop: does it even start? MVC: can't be called an IDE.

Just vscode is fine. And the jetbrwins one ofcourse! Clion was it?

I use Qt Creator IDE in Linux. Haven't looked into other ones.

@whimsical I guess I have used vscode too. Doh! I hardly touch it though. And Pycharm.

Jetbrains IDEs are pretty damn good

@12bitfloat you are pretty damn good yourself young man.

@whimsical ;P

Will second CLion, it's what I use - though I don't know if you can open the linux kernel in it. Otherwise there is always VIM ;P

IDEs are a stupid idea retard. We do real programming here, go back to windows if you want to click on your little buttons.

if you can't code in a TUI you're a noob.

> "Fuck Linux, not a single decent C/C++ IDE"

If you're doing C/C++ on Linux, you already don't care about usability/productivity. You like command prompts, putting random abc files in random xyz folders just to turn a button blue.

I’ve had good experiences with CLion in the past

@BordedDev It doesn't look bad, the best i've found with Geany. None of them is superior to MVS

How would a C++ IDE actually work? I don't mean a Visual C++ IDE which only works well on a small subset of popular C++ use-cases and features, I mean a real C++ IDE which supports all legitimate ways to write C++.

I mean, I guess you could probably insert yourself between the build tool and the compiler to read all compiler input and the related output and to force the compiler to generate intermediate files for you, then parse that to provide semantic features. Or you could use the clang server or whatever it's called, but then you didn't get rid of assumptions, you just replaced yours with someone else's.

Or you could chicken out, force cmake and clang, which would allow you to make assumptions, but it would once again force you to use a tiny subset of the language and associated tooling.

C/C++ are weird, because they have so little in terms of high level structure that pretty much the only way to guarantee that your code will work with every setup is to have it all in a single file.

@lorentz

"force you to use a tiny subset of the language and associated tooling"

Qt Creator does only support qmake and cmake (maybe makefile, not sure). It has the concept of "kits" to handle any compiler, linker, debugger you might want. It also has support for ssh files to a target if needed and remote debugging.

It does filter compiler outputs to help identify errors and warnings. It also has varying output windows to capture output from stdio and debuggers. It also has a ton of tools specific to qt development.

My guess it is designed to capture output from gcc, msvc and clang. Not sure what else it might support. It ships with clang type processing to evaluate code in the ide itself before you compile.

Anyway, got interrupted at work. But Qt Creator does a lot of things for me that make my life a lot simpler. I use it at home and work. We do arm and x86 work with it.

@lorentz

"force you to use a tiny subset of the language and associated tooling"

I forgot to ask what you mean by this. Lack of support for more compilers and build tools?

@lorentz You are still limited to the platform you're in no? It's like why the fuck I would use GCC on Windows, native is a nice word.

@jccastro we cross compile for ARM on x86 Linux.

@jccastro You would want to use GCC because you want GCC features such as ABI compatibility, or because your codebase is 270k lines of cruft and you wouldn't want to roll the dice on whether you managed to follow all the rules even if you had the budget, or because you have a greenfield project but you're counting on the abovementioned inevitable eventuality and trust GCC's governance more if you'll eventually have to depend on a specific compiler anyway. It's all subjective, but there are lots of reasons to prefer any specific compiler.

@YourMom We cross compile for ARM on Windows x86