3 ms·

> This is not even true. It is absolutely true. The CLI-first `dotnet watch` was pretty much done (I was using it in preview for months beforehand), and it was

> This is not even true. It is absolutely true. The CLI-first `dotnet watch` was pretty much done (I was using it in preview for months beforehand), and it was cut to promote hot reload as a Visual Studio feature. Source: I'm the person who raised the initial GitHub issue about the dotnet watch change, and I talked to multiple Developer Division employees off the record. It was a deeply unpopular move that came from the top (Julia Liuson).

charcircuit 4y ago
So it's the public word of someone from the .NET team versus your unnamed sources. It sounds like there was a communication issue as from the blog post the reason given behind removing it wasn't to drive sales of Visual Studio. It sounds like if their team had more resources it wouldn't have been cut which invalidates the point of them using it to promote VS.
- ripley12 4y ago
  That post by Scott Hunter was a way to save face after Liuson backed down. It is absolutely not truthful about the original reason for removing dotnet watch, and was widely criticized as such at the time. Please trust me on this; the whole dotnet watch drama consumed my life for a good week when it happened. If you want a source from the .NET team, Miguel de Icaza has since quit Microsoft and is able to be more open about what's going on: https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/1537178691218046976 https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/1537178691218046976 Even during the dotnet watch drama, he was willing to endorse a very critical take at odds with the public line: https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/1451902388290392073 https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/1451902388290392073
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    >That post by Scott Hunter was a way to save face after Liuson backed down That disappoints me. I would prefer if they would just be honest and say that for the time being they would only support it in Visual Studio. >to endorse a very critical take at odds with the public one Interestingly enough the article mentions that Microsoft has been underfunding Omnisharp and VSCode has poor C# support. The first link you gave talks about how Microsoft is now working with Omnisharp to improve C# support.

charcircuit 4y ago

So it's the public word of someone from the .NET team versus your unnamed sources. It sounds like there was a communication issue as from the blog post the reason given behind removing it wasn't to drive sales of Visual Studio. It sounds like if their team had more resources it wouldn't have been cut which invalidates the point of them using it to promote VS.

ripley12 4y ago
That post by Scott Hunter was a way to save face after Liuson backed down. It is absolutely not truthful about the original reason for removing dotnet watch, and was widely criticized as such at the time. Please trust me on this; the whole dotnet watch drama consumed my life for a good week when it happened. If you want a source from the .NET team, Miguel de Icaza has since quit Microsoft and is able to be more open about what's going on: https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/1537178691218046976 https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/1537178691218046976 Even during the dotnet watch drama, he was willing to endorse a very critical take at odds with the public line: https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/1451902388290392073 https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/1451902388290392073
- charcircuit 4y ago
  >That post by Scott Hunter was a way to save face after Liuson backed down That disappoints me. I would prefer if they would just be honest and say that for the time being they would only support it in Visual Studio. >to endorse a very critical take at odds with the public one Interestingly enough the article mentions that Microsoft has been underfunding Omnisharp and VSCode has poor C# support. The first link you gave talks about how Microsoft is now working with Omnisharp to improve C# support.