Have you tried https://www.jetbrains.com/clion/ ?
QtCreator also feels much snappier when typing in general.
The one good thing of CLion in my eyes is its detection of unused includes. But QtC is overall superior for C++ dev experience, especially when you factor in all the static analysis (clang-analyzer is integrated), profiling support (how nice is it to see small percentages next to your lines of code ! ), pretty debugging, etc.
Both support CMake but QtCreator supports CMake's server mode API which is the recommended way onwards: https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.10/manual/cmake-server.7.htm...
FWIW CLion also has built-in static analysis.
That's... not how moc works at all. Moc parse your header files and generates additional cpp files from it which contain boilerplate for reflection and signals. So no static analyzer has any problem parsing Qt code... (I use cppcheck, coverity, clang-analyzer, clang-tidy)
The "special" Qt keywords like signal, slot, etc... are just trivial macros:
https://github.com/qt/qtbase/blob/5.10/src/corelib/kernel/qo...
"signals" is just defined as "public", "slots" and "emit" as nothing. Your compiler compiles your source as-is.
If you really don't like moc, there's a way to get its features natively with C++14 compilers (and uglier macros) : https://github.com/woboq/verdigris
You don't explicitly say so, but your answer suggests that your project uses Qt heavily. QtCreator is great for Qt projects - fine. That doesn't say much about it in general though. Other IDEs handling a Qt-heavy project less well than QtCreator says nothing about them other than that they can afford to ignore Qt.
Thanks for the link to verdigris. It's certainly less offensive than Moc, but if you're forced to use Qt you may as well use Moc.
I haven't played with QtCreator lately. Clion has, over the past couple years, become my favorite C++ IDE on Linux because it can consume my hand-written cross-platform CMakeLists.txt and give me a nice experience, and because the debugger is really good IMO.