4 ms·

The name of the "VS Code" product makes the title a little mis-leading. I thought the code for "Visual Studio" was open sourced. Turns out it's just this stripp

by hasenj 11y ago

The name of the "VS Code" product makes the title a little mis-leading. I thought the code for "Visual Studio" was open sourced. Turns out it's just this stripped down editor called "Visual Studio Code".

dransy 11y ago
Code is capitalised, that's the giveaway.
- leetNightshade 11y ago
  Yes, but in titles most words are capitalized. If you look on the visualstudio.com page that is the case, though they're not very consistent.
bigtones 11y ago
Microsoft have never been good at product naming. Just today they renamed 'Visual Studio Online' to 'Visual Studio Team Services' because people thought it was an online version of Visual Studio. They need a VP of Product Names, someone that actually cares what their products are called. '.Net' for example is a stupid name because it is practically un-googleable.
- stagger87 11y ago
  I searched for ".net" (without quotes) in several search engines, some of which I have never used, and the first page is only results for Microsoft .Net.
- solipsism 11y ago
  Recently MS announced that the package manager they're building for Windows, until then code-named OneGet, had been christened.... PackageManagement. sigh
  - spdionis 11y ago
    Imagine writing that in the console everytime... why not 'pm'? :(
- Coincoin 11y ago
  This reminds me of the early 2000s when .Net was still in development and nobody knew exactly what it was because Microsoft would never admit it was just a better Java. When everybody was confused enough, they did the next logical thing, they peppered the .Net suffix to all their brands, that way they could tell the DoJ it was an integral part of all their products. They quickly reverted everything when they realized what a cluster fuck they actually created. They kept the stupid name though.
- jcl 11y ago
  For what it's worth, .NET was chosen at the peak of the .com boom, when Microsoft was trying to hide the fact that they were late to the party -- and COM was already taken. :)
badloginagain 11y ago
Visual Studio Code is a bad name. - It draws comparisons to Visual Studio- even though Code isn't really an IDE (nor is it supposed to be) - It's really bad for SEO, searching for "how to do X in Visual Studio Code" pulls hundreds of existing posts on how to do that thing in classic VS. That's going to disrupt developer experience for both VS and Code. - It's confusing for developers wanting to download Code, or VS; too easy to mistake one for the other. The SEO problem is a bad one, because it gets worse as each project gets older. I'd even be ok if it were MS Code or something, but VS Code is actually a bad name.
- tracker1 11y ago
  As for being an IDE, it's headed that way... there's debugger integration for node and go, while python (from upstream comments) is being worked on. I haven't used the integrated debugger/runtime, but it seems to be going that way... As a straight editor though, definitely more lightweight than any IDE I've used.
- Yuioup 11y ago
  That's the entire idea behind the name. When you go to the website or start searching around for "Visual Studio Code" you quickly end up with links to Visual Studio (obviously) and Azure. Make no mistake. Microsoft is not developing Visual Studio code out of the goodness of their hearts. This is a marketing strategy to get people to move to Azure.
  - badloginagain 11y ago
    Developing Code out of the goodness of their hearts? No. Developing Code as part of some convoluted marketing strategy that cannot be measured? Also no. More likely they're developing Code to compete with Sublime Text and the like. They don't have a product in that market and Microsoft's strategy is what it's always been: gaining marketshare. Microsoft's success is [now] defined by developers active on MS technology. It underlies the open-sourcing of technologies long held proprietary, as well as the responsiveness to developer feedback. Long term, I suspect the theory is if MS has a majority stake in the developer market, it can start defining the technology the world runs on (again). Its more of a give-take relationship though, with MS devoting resources to the resources developers actually use.

by hasenj 11y ago

dransy 11y ago

Code is capitalised, that's the giveaway.

leetNightshade 11y ago
Yes, but in titles most words are capitalized. If you look on the visualstudio.com page that is the case, though they're not very consistent.

bigtones 11y ago

Microsoft have never been good at product naming. Just today they renamed 'Visual Studio Online' to 'Visual Studio Team Services' because people thought it was an online version of Visual Studio. They need a VP of Product Names, someone that actually cares what their products are called. '.Net' for example is a stupid name because it is practically un-googleable.

stagger87 11y ago
I searched for ".net" (without quotes) in several search engines, some of which I have never used, and the first page is only results for Microsoft .Net.
solipsism 11y ago
Recently MS announced that the package manager they're building for Windows, until then code-named OneGet, had been christened.... PackageManagement. sigh
- spdionis 11y ago
  Imagine writing that in the console everytime... why not 'pm'? :(
Coincoin 11y ago
This reminds me of the early 2000s when .Net was still in development and nobody knew exactly what it was because Microsoft would never admit it was just a better Java. When everybody was confused enough, they did the next logical thing, they peppered the .Net suffix to all their brands, that way they could tell the DoJ it was an integral part of all their products. They quickly reverted everything when they realized what a cluster fuck they actually created. They kept the stupid name though.
jcl 11y ago
For what it's worth, .NET was chosen at the peak of the .com boom, when Microsoft was trying to hide the fact that they were late to the party -- and COM was already taken. :)

badloginagain 11y ago

Visual Studio Code is a bad name. - It draws comparisons to Visual Studio- even though Code isn't really an IDE (nor is it supposed to be) - It's really bad for SEO, searching for "how to do X in Visual Studio Code" pulls hundreds of existing posts on how to do that thing in classic VS. That's going to disrupt developer experience for both VS and Code. - It's confusing for developers wanting to download Code, or VS; too easy to mistake one for the other. The SEO problem is a bad one, because it gets worse as each project gets older. I'd even be ok if it were MS Code or something, but VS Code is actually a bad name.

tracker1 11y ago
As for being an IDE, it's headed that way... there's debugger integration for node and go, while python (from upstream comments) is being worked on. I haven't used the integrated debugger/runtime, but it seems to be going that way... As a straight editor though, definitely more lightweight than any IDE I've used.
Yuioup 11y ago
That's the entire idea behind the name. When you go to the website or start searching around for "Visual Studio Code" you quickly end up with links to Visual Studio (obviously) and Azure. Make no mistake. Microsoft is not developing Visual Studio code out of the goodness of their hearts. This is a marketing strategy to get people to move to Azure.
- badloginagain 11y ago
  Developing Code out of the goodness of their hearts? No. Developing Code as part of some convoluted marketing strategy that cannot be measured? Also no. More likely they're developing Code to compete with Sublime Text and the like. They don't have a product in that market and Microsoft's strategy is what it's always been: gaining marketshare. Microsoft's success is [now] defined by developers active on MS technology. It underlies the open-sourcing of technologies long held proprietary, as well as the responsiveness to developer feedback. Long term, I suspect the theory is if MS has a majority stake in the developer market, it can start defining the technology the world runs on (again). Its more of a give-take relationship though, with MS devoting resources to the resources developers actually use.