3 ms·
The idea of a Linux version does seem ridiculous like you said, but I'm not sure lack of 64-bit is a good example to illustrate it. They already migrated much o
by mehrdadn 7y ago
The idea of a Linux version does seem ridiculous like you said, but I'm not sure lack of 64-bit is a good example to illustrate it. They already migrated much of VS2008 to .NET when they did 2010, which to me seemed like a herculean feat, for what was quite questionable end-user gain (and I'm being quite generous with that assessment), and .NET should've made architecture-independent easier. Lack of 64-bit just seems to be due to the cost not justifying the benefit rather than the feat itself being so herculean per se.
- thrower123 7y agoThe main problem there is that it runs like a dog and thrashes when you have big solutions and get near to 2GB of RAM usage. It's pretty silly on workstations that have 16-32 GB of total memory available. When they first justified the decision not to move to 64-bit a decade ago, it was more defensible, but time has moved on hard, and they've been fighting that decision, moving bits and pieces out of process ever since.