4 ms·

VSCode has very much opposing philosophy to Emacs. It's a Microsoft product and it shows, they don't have standard concept of buffers/windows, so trying to do c

VSCode has very much opposing philosophy to Emacs. It's a Microsoft product and it shows, they don't have standard concept of buffers/windows, so trying to do customization is ugly. For example, you can't easily implement a shell which moves around the windows and can also sit on a side, because windows and sidebars are totally different concepts in the code. VSCode depresses the hell out of me, it's almost a summary of the bad things of open source. Open source but most people will download it with spyware Open source but not really built as a nice platform to be meaningfully extended Open source and controlled by a single company Open source and used cynically as a wedge to pull developers into your orbit Open source and not at all written from an extensible mindset, just enough extensibility to trap people in Open source and will dominate other offerings because it has a big name behind it, so damages atom/emacs/etc Open source and pretty much an inferior copy of an existing thing (Atom) Developers who are proud of using VSCode baffle me, have a word with yourselves.

oblio 8y ago
Design choices are not always bad. And Open Source != not being opinionated. Regarding the spyware thing, agreed, but at the end of the day, the makers choose how they distribute the thing. It's just like Chrome and many other products. I, for one, am thankful that they're making available a high quality tool for free.
- ken 8y ago
  > It's just like Chrome and many other products. Exactly. That's another program whose "open source" status frustrates and saddens me.
  - oblio 8y ago
    I guess you should be looking for Free Software. After all, there was a big kerfuffle about it in the early 2000's.
mrighele 8y ago
Not an user of VSCode, but what you wrote applies to a lot of corporate-backed open source products. Try to replace VSCode with Chrome in your post, it will probably even more apt.
YuukiRey 8y ago
I don't usually do this "argument by argument rebuttal" but since your post is extremely misleading I can't resist: > pretty much an inferior copy of an existing thing (Atom) How? For starters, it's a lot faster which appears to be a major reason why people switch > but not really built as a nice platform to be meaningfully extended Well that's up for debate now isn't it? Its plugin ecosystem disagrees with a perceived lack of extensibility. > used cynically as a wedge to pull developers into your orbit How does VSC do that? I use it and I've never seen it advertise other Microsoft products or services to me. > and controlled by a single company Fork it.
- zimablue 8y ago
  1. Kind of fair, it's better in some ways and worse in others. I would emphasise extensibility (this is after all an emacs thread) so I'd call it worse. You don't seem to dispute that it's a copy (in terms of engine/approach) 2. Same as 1, having read the issues and some of the source I stand by the statement. 3. Ask yourself why else Microsoft would build something 4. Fork it is naive to the point of being dishonest. You cannot outfork something with 10 professional developers, unless you're Stallman doing it full time. You only disputed some of my points, "most people will download it with spyware", "it will damage existing more truly extensible efforts" seems to be a pretty key ones you haven't disputed. If only those two were true it would be enough for me to dislike it.

oblio 8y ago

Design choices are not always bad. And Open Source != not being opinionated. Regarding the spyware thing, agreed, but at the end of the day, the makers choose how they distribute the thing. It's just like Chrome and many other products. I, for one, am thankful that they're making available a high quality tool for free.

ken 8y ago
> It's just like Chrome and many other products. Exactly. That's another program whose "open source" status frustrates and saddens me.
- oblio 8y ago
  I guess you should be looking for Free Software. After all, there was a big kerfuffle about it in the early 2000's.

mrighele 8y ago

Not an user of VSCode, but what you wrote applies to a lot of corporate-backed open source products. Try to replace VSCode with Chrome in your post, it will probably even more apt.

YuukiRey 8y ago

I don't usually do this "argument by argument rebuttal" but since your post is extremely misleading I can't resist: > pretty much an inferior copy of an existing thing (Atom) How? For starters, it's a lot faster which appears to be a major reason why people switch > but not really built as a nice platform to be meaningfully extended Well that's up for debate now isn't it? Its plugin ecosystem disagrees with a perceived lack of extensibility. > used cynically as a wedge to pull developers into your orbit How does VSC do that? I use it and I've never seen it advertise other Microsoft products or services to me. > and controlled by a single company Fork it.

zimablue 8y ago
1. Kind of fair, it's better in some ways and worse in others. I would emphasise extensibility (this is after all an emacs thread) so I'd call it worse. You don't seem to dispute that it's a copy (in terms of engine/approach) 2. Same as 1, having read the issues and some of the source I stand by the statement. 3. Ask yourself why else Microsoft would build something 4. Fork it is naive to the point of being dishonest. You cannot outfork something with 10 professional developers, unless you're Stallman doing it full time. You only disputed some of my points, "most people will download it with spyware", "it will damage existing more truly extensible efforts" seems to be a pretty key ones you haven't disputed. If only those two were true it would be enough for me to dislike it.