5 ms·
The web page is FUD, but the GitHub issue is describing yet another top level management decision which is totally not helpful source code wise and reputation w
by oaiey 4y ago
The web page is FUD, but the GitHub issue is describing yet another top level management decision which is totally not helpful source code wise and reputation wise.
Creating a bridging host component for tools with multiple intellisense or debugging providers is okay, but the host must be open source to control what is happening.
This is a strategic move to unify VS and VS Code ... And the open source debacle is the thing in between.
- exyi 4y agoIf they want to unify and not just have more control over the ecosystem, why not unify them over OmniSharp or other open LSP?
- meragrin_ 4y agoI don't think it is to unify. I wouldn't be surprised if it would be another revenue source. People may prefer the interface of VS Code, but prefer the backend tools in VS. Microsoft could end up selling plugins/add-ons/whatever for VS Code.
- oaiey 4y agoThat ship has sailed. Which programming language in the top 20 is commercial regards revenue from compiler, Debugger and nowadays basic LSP stuff like IntelliSense, code inspection etc. The only commercial aspect is productivity like IntelliCode, IntelliTrace, GitHub AutoPilot and friends. For that you pay JetBrains, Microsoft, GitLab etc. There they will make money.
- cokeandpepsi 4y agoprobably because the plan is to mix it with their ML code generating tools
- nicce 4y ago> host must be open source to control what is happening. Open source does not mean that there is any control with other entities than Microsoft. We can see what is happening, but it is up the the Microsoft to decide what code is merged and so on.
- oaiey 4y agoWhich is "source open". But we also need "open source" (which includes and OSI license), so we can package independent of Microsoft. There the critic about closing their ecosystem comes from.
- parineum 4y agoI have a pull request out right now for an open source project that hasn't been merged because I'm not in control of it.
- radicalbyte 4y agoThis. My first reaction was - why are we posting FUD here. Then you see it: they're switching from an OSS component to a new component, which *will not be open-sourced*. Retiring code with architectural changes is fine, it's normal, it happens everywhere. I don't have a problem with it. Only the replacement should be comparable in licence. Which this one isn't.
- capableweb 4y ago> Retiring code with architectural changes is fine, it's normal, it happens everywhere. I don't have a problem with it. Only the replacement should be comparable in licence. Which this one isn't. Not sure how you could perform the whole "extinguish" step without replacing any OSS/free/copyleft license with a closed-source version of it. "Extinguish" with OSS components would just be "embrace" or "extend", both of which Microsoft has already completed, so time to move on to the next step.
- adrr 4y agoWhat does an IDE have to do with a software framework? Besides Java and eclipse, what other frameworks provide an open source IDE?
- oaiey 4y agoA programming language is defined by its attributes. Some measure speed, beauty, library reach but most modern language need productivity as a key attribute. There C# has its strength. And productivity includes debuggers, intellisense, etc. It requires a non traditional compiler etc. There is a powerful video of Anders Hejlsberg explaining this. And that guy knows about it.