5 ms·

I don't understand the fuzz about it. There are a lot of commercial/closed-source devtools out there (IntelliJ, Rider) for otherwise open languages/platforms th

I don't understand the fuzz about it. There are a lot of commercial/closed-source devtools out there (IntelliJ, Rider) for otherwise open languages/platforms that devs are obviously happy to use and pay for. We are not demanding that every Java/Python/PHP etc. tool is open source and free, why is there this double-standard for Microsoft?

bluehatbrit 4y ago
In this case they didn't just plan, build, and release a feature in VS. They got all the way through the building and most of the QA for a feature in the core .net cli and decided to remove it, not for quality reasons, but because they wanted VS to have a feature others didn't. The work had been done and then they rushed through a PR to avoid community comment to remove the code. If python removed a feature so a specific IDE could have it exclusively I think people would also be upset.
- scandinavian 4y ago
  I feel like you are talking about dotnet watch thing which this post is not about.
  - bluehatbrit 4y ago
    You're right, I focused on one of the sub-links too much when I was replying to that. My bad, thanks
adli89 4y ago
Because Microsoft claims they love open source, apparently they are not allowed to do anything closed source, ever.
- exyi 4y ago
  Look, nobody complains about Visual Studio. People get angry when suffocate existing tools with their free and "open source looking" alternatives. Ask Python devs if they think that their VSCode extension is open ... Even I thought it was open yesterday, turns out it's not and they pretty much removed support Jedi, the acutally open language server.
exyi 4y ago
When I use Rider I just fully accept that it's not open source. Same with the old Visual Studio. VSCode on the other hand looks open source, they claim it's open source, the extension is open source, yet the most critical component is not. I would call this the new new Microsoft - we look like we love open source, we give you open source tools, but it's either not open actually (this) / will not work if you compile it yourself (VS Code and .NET debugger) / only works on Windows ("Multi-platform App UI", maybe Mac, I don't know)
Starlevel001 4y ago
The base edition of IntelliJ (and also the base edition of PyCharm) is open source: https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community
asojfdowgh 4y ago
publicity and traction over competition by using the open-source label, then silently switching parts of the code out with closed source replacements, and for the most part, dropping any development or contribution to the pre-existing components, practically killing them off (in turn, preventing any floss forks of vscode from using said components, unless they make a commitment to maintain the security, API compatibility, etc, of those components) for example, Sublime never did that, sublime was closed, and is closed, and will be closed. They arn't trying to gain traction at the cost of lying in their advertising and labeling, they don't exclusively release closed licensed versions of their "open-source" product like MS does

bluehatbrit 4y ago

In this case they didn't just plan, build, and release a feature in VS. They got all the way through the building and most of the QA for a feature in the core .net cli and decided to remove it, not for quality reasons, but because they wanted VS to have a feature others didn't. The work had been done and then they rushed through a PR to avoid community comment to remove the code. If python removed a feature so a specific IDE could have it exclusively I think people would also be upset.

scandinavian 4y ago
I feel like you are talking about dotnet watch thing which this post is not about.
- bluehatbrit 4y ago
  You're right, I focused on one of the sub-links too much when I was replying to that. My bad, thanks

adli89 4y ago

Because Microsoft claims they love open source, apparently they are not allowed to do anything closed source, ever.

exyi 4y ago
Look, nobody complains about Visual Studio. People get angry when suffocate existing tools with their free and "open source looking" alternatives. Ask Python devs if they think that their VSCode extension is open ... Even I thought it was open yesterday, turns out it's not and they pretty much removed support Jedi, the acutally open language server.

exyi 4y ago

When I use Rider I just fully accept that it's not open source. Same with the old Visual Studio. VSCode on the other hand looks open source, they claim it's open source, the extension is open source, yet the most critical component is not. I would call this the new new Microsoft - we look like we love open source, we give you open source tools, but it's either not open actually (this) / will not work if you compile it yourself (VS Code and .NET debugger) / only works on Windows ("Multi-platform App UI", maybe Mac, I don't know)

Starlevel001 4y ago

The base edition of IntelliJ (and also the base edition of PyCharm) is open source: https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community

asojfdowgh 4y ago

publicity and traction over competition by using the open-source label, then silently switching parts of the code out with closed source replacements, and for the most part, dropping any development or contribution to the pre-existing components, practically killing them off (in turn, preventing any floss forks of vscode from using said components, unless they make a commitment to maintain the security, API compatibility, etc, of those components) for example, Sublime never did that, sublime was closed, and is closed, and will be closed. They arn't trying to gain traction at the cost of lying in their advertising and labeling, they don't exclusively release closed licensed versions of their "open-source" product like MS does