No and yes.

No in the sense that there is too much fragmentation already. You're quite right about that.

Yes in the sense that Open Source IDEs still have a long way to go before they are as useful as e.g. the MS Visual product range, or Delphi. So there is room for improvement.

Take KDevelop for one. I've worked quite a bit with KDevelop before becoming disenchanted with it. After all these years of development it's still nursing a galloping case of featuritis. As a result, its interface is a grab-bag of "ghee-wiz-look-we-can-do-this-too" gimmicks, which makes for a steep learning curve; various things that should be dead simple are still awkward (e.g. adding a lot of existing C++ files to a project), and vital things (like creation and handling of the whole make process) is still as transparent as mud, as well-documented as the average Alchemy recipe, and as about user-friendly as make ever was. Oh, and did I mention the general attitude of developers towards people who would like to see them polish the product before they add anything more? "Code it yourself" is just about the most positive and polite response you'll get.

I strongly feel that GUIs and libraries like Qt are one place where the "Cathedral" approach is definitely better than the "Bazar" approach. In such cases I feel that developers should be disciplined enough (either by themselves or because a manager is politely insisting that they prioritize stuff) to polish something first before going on to the next bunch of interesting features.

Editing and code navigation is OK in KDevelop though. However, KDevelop isn't available for MS Windows (queue rants about MS Windows here) whereas Qt Creator is, despite the fact that the framework basic to KDE (Qt) is available on both platforms. In addition Qt Creator edges towards the GUI-building prowess offered by e.g. Borland Delphi and MS products (and Java), but does so in a way that can be used on practically all platforms of importance: MS WIndows, MacOS, Linux, and various handhelds. KDevelop does not.

Now if you can point me to an Open Source IDE that offers all that right now, *and* supports the Qt GUI builder process then I'd be interested.

In the mean time I'm more than happy to be able to benefit from the Qt framework in a dependable and easy-to-learn (if a somewhat feature-limited) little IDE and still be confident I can port what I write to Linux or MacOS or whereever with little more than a recompile.

That's why I personally feel that there is room for Qt Creator despite the wide range of existing tools.