I used to think that before I tried using Qt Creator. Your project doesn't need to be a Qt project for you to use it. Make sure you enable the clang code model plugin. It's a bit slow but otherwise flawless.

Certainly willing to give it a try. I can say that I can't imagine any tagging system to be any better than CDT, so at best it may be comparable. Though if the system is comparable with an interface that's faster than Eclipse, it would be quite nice.

Having used both, Qt Creator is so much better than eclipse that it's not even funny. Of course, you first have to forget your eclipse habits and learn the equivalent QtC ones - in particular using the locator (http://doc.qt.io/qtcreator/creator-editor-locator.html), and the available refactorings (http://doc.qt.io/qtcreator/creator-editor-refactoring.html). Recent versions also ship with a clang backend for completion ; it also supports clang-format and clang-tidy natively, with inline fix-its that are shown automatically.

Qt blog has quite a few complaints regarding completion performance delays on Windows from several seconds.

Opinions vary on QT Creator. I personally found it to be hostile to my desires. The little thing that made it unfit for my purpose was that, when I code for Cygwin use, I need my Windows editor to be configurable for Unix conventions, but QT Creator was not configurable to Unix conventions. Eclipse is configurable.

I believe if I had been making programs targeting QT, I might not have run into this issue. But I don't make that kind of program.

I tried out Qt Creator and I have to say I'm impressed. Once set up I can say that the tagging/autocomplete worked quite nicely. Very snappy.

Do you dislike programing in Java, or using programs written in Java?

Generally Java has a large footprint on the machine and startup time can be slower (however they're attempting to solve through the Graal VM). Also Java's syntax is extremely verbose and the API usage is verbose as well. All common complaints coming from a C++ programmer. When comparing programs for daily use, native applications tend to feel snappier, though there's no reason a Java program can't feel that way if properly written.

I like Java for the comfy warm embrace that a business language provides, but C++ wins out in the world of 'get out of my way and let me get stuff done'.

C++ wins out in the world of “get out of my way and let me shoot my feet off”. The only professional language hated more than Java is C++.

You're not wrong. This is a Rust post after all. I'm of the opinion that C++ by itself is both unfinished and bloated at the same time. Most memory access should be funneled through libraries better equipped to handle memory than our feeble minds, and when we really need the performance, we know when to break out of the cage and get things working. Most of the problems I've encountered in C++ is interpreting the crazy stuff other developers have done, because alas C++ has allowed it! Funny enough, the object oriented nature of the language has been the biggest thorn in my side. You'll get no shortage of complaints by me of how C++ is designed. Somehow I manage to forgive a lot due to the incredible performance of the code a C++ compiler generates.