5 ms·

So, is this the Extend part now? Embrace is over? (I don't understand each of the terms of the slogan enough) Side note, I am guessing this means that Vim, Ema

by erklik 4y ago

So, is this the Extend part now? Embrace is over? (I don't understand each of the terms of the slogan enough) Side note, I am guessing this means that Vim, Emacs etc using LSP don't get C# intellisense anymore?

mistrial9 4y ago
the 90s saying was Embrace,Extend,Extinguish. pick an internet or engineering standard: implement the standard in a correct, technical way (Embrace); add MSFT proprietary extensions using an IDE, a method of notification, graphical desktop software with convenience functions, etc (Extend); now, require MSFT software to use that result, use finance to market it, use contracts to require company-wide use of standard MSFT computers -- sales for vendors that are not MSFT will fall on the open market because enough companies have already purchased the MSFT windows desktop, either required by the company/department or when purchasing the PC -- why spend more money when you have what you were after, and it is built in? In Redmond, winning more sales is not enough -- kill competing companies and/or write extensions to the standard-at-hand that require MSFT products (Extinguish). Recall that the Windows license was sold without consent of an individual user, it was included when the PC was purchased, through a legally enforced agreement with the PC manufacturer. These methods made Bill Gates the wealthiest man in the World for twenty sequential years or so, with multiple anti-trust convictions and a row of books published on the details.
- webmaven 4y ago
  > pick an internet or engineering standard: implement the standard in a correct, technical way (Embrace); add MSFT proprietary extensions using an IDE, a method of notification, graphical desktop software with convenience functions, etc (Extend); You're sort of glossing over how this works in practice. The extensions to the open standard generally cause interoperability to be one way: the Microsoft implementation can interoperate freely with the open implementation(s), but the reverse isn't necessarily true (or if true at the outset, isn't guaranteed to remain so). There is often also a way to use or operate the MS implementation in a fully compatible mode, but it isn't the default configuration (and an update will often revert to the default), and requires forgoing the functionality that the extensions provide. There is a bit of "boiling the frog" aspect to this, with incompatibilities (usually experienced by those using a non-MS implementation without the extensions) that start as annoyances gradually escalating, and at all times switching to the MS implementation is an easy (and, as long as their market share isn't dominant, affordable) option to make the headache go away.
Cu3PO42 4y ago
Presumably other editors won't get the new language server, unfortunately. However the ability to use the current open source language server (which is not made by Microsoft) should remain unaffected.
RandoSTDev 4y ago
Nothing that exists today is moving behind a closed-source model. Omnisharp will continue to be open and maintained but it won't be the default anymore.
- ghuntley 4y ago
  ecosystem defaults was: open, like ruby, golang or rust ecosystem defaults now: closed, proprietary to ensure the programming language is only useful if you are a paying customer of Visual Studio. See the problem? More at https://isdotnetopen.com/ https://isdotnetopen.com/
  - vips7L 4y ago
    > is only useful if you are a paying customer of Visual Studio I don’t see how that’s true since it’s going into VS Code, the free product.
kehrin 4y ago
As far as I know Emacs never used LSP for C# development, because OmniSharp doesn't use LSP. I doubt we'll get better IntelliSense from this move, but OmniSharp stays available to Emacs and so does its IntelliSense.

by erklik 4y ago

mistrial9 4y ago

the 90s saying was Embrace,Extend,Extinguish. pick an internet or engineering standard: implement the standard in a correct, technical way (Embrace); add MSFT proprietary extensions using an IDE, a method of notification, graphical desktop software with convenience functions, etc (Extend); now, require MSFT software to use that result, use finance to market it, use contracts to require company-wide use of standard MSFT computers -- sales for vendors that are not MSFT will fall on the open market because enough companies have already purchased the MSFT windows desktop, either required by the company/department or when purchasing the PC -- why spend more money when you have what you were after, and it is built in? In Redmond, winning more sales is not enough -- kill competing companies and/or write extensions to the standard-at-hand that require MSFT products (Extinguish). Recall that the Windows license was sold without consent of an individual user, it was included when the PC was purchased, through a legally enforced agreement with the PC manufacturer. These methods made Bill Gates the wealthiest man in the World for twenty sequential years or so, with multiple anti-trust convictions and a row of books published on the details.

webmaven 4y ago
> pick an internet or engineering standard: implement the standard in a correct, technical way (Embrace); add MSFT proprietary extensions using an IDE, a method of notification, graphical desktop software with convenience functions, etc (Extend); You're sort of glossing over how this works in practice. The extensions to the open standard generally cause interoperability to be one way: the Microsoft implementation can interoperate freely with the open implementation(s), but the reverse isn't necessarily true (or if true at the outset, isn't guaranteed to remain so). There is often also a way to use or operate the MS implementation in a fully compatible mode, but it isn't the default configuration (and an update will often revert to the default), and requires forgoing the functionality that the extensions provide. There is a bit of "boiling the frog" aspect to this, with incompatibilities (usually experienced by those using a non-MS implementation without the extensions) that start as annoyances gradually escalating, and at all times switching to the MS implementation is an easy (and, as long as their market share isn't dominant, affordable) option to make the headache go away.

Cu3PO42 4y ago

Presumably other editors won't get the new language server, unfortunately. However the ability to use the current open source language server (which is not made by Microsoft) should remain unaffected.

RandoSTDev 4y ago

Nothing that exists today is moving behind a closed-source model. Omnisharp will continue to be open and maintained but it won't be the default anymore.

ghuntley 4y ago
ecosystem defaults was: open, like ruby, golang or rust ecosystem defaults now: closed, proprietary to ensure the programming language is only useful if you are a paying customer of Visual Studio. See the problem? More at https://isdotnetopen.com/ https://isdotnetopen.com/
- vips7L 4y ago
  > is only useful if you are a paying customer of Visual Studio I don’t see how that’s true since it’s going into VS Code, the free product.

kehrin 4y ago

As far as I know Emacs never used LSP for C# development, because OmniSharp doesn't use LSP. I doubt we'll get better IntelliSense from this move, but OmniSharp stays available to Emacs and so does its IntelliSense.