4 ms·

> Sorry, but OmniSharp sucks I agree. This appears more like an attempt to get the most value (integration of proprietary Visual Studio features that devs want

by Hawxy 4y ago

> Sorry, but OmniSharp sucks I agree. This appears more like an attempt to get the most value (integration of proprietary Visual Studio features that devs want) into the VSCode extension as quickly as possible. Said proprietary libraries are likely not able to be easily open sourced for a variety of possible reasons, so a closed source LSP bridge was the compromise the teams came to.

WorldMaker 4y ago
The directly related fight here is Microsoft's pylance on the Python side. pyright still exists and many of the components in pylance are still open source, but pylance itself is closed source and bundles closed source tools. (That is pylance is not just a pyright fork, but closed source LSP bridge for pyright + proprietary parts.) It's not without controversy on the Python side as well. At some point it simply becomes questions of stewardship and transparency: How good are they at pointing out the open source parts wrapped inside the closed source LSP bridge? What cadence do they upstream fixes to the open source parts? So far Microsoft's stewardship on the Python side seems strong: pylance has a lot of transparent documentation of all the open source bits. There seems to be a steady upstream flow to pyright for users that prefer to stay entirely with an open source LSP. Microsoft isn't treating it like a competition to "win" and encourages users to make their own choice among the options. Of course, Microsoft doesn't "own" Python in the same way it "owns" .NET so I can definitely understand why there's increased fear that Microsoft won't be as good of a steward with respect to this "competition" with OmniSharp simply because of .NET's past. But in .NET's past this controversy would be happening after Microsoft did all the work in building the closed source LSP replacement. The fact that we're having this discussion now in only an "architectural discussion" state says a lot already about how Microsoft's stewardship and transparency have changed today.

by Hawxy 4y ago

WorldMaker 4y ago

The directly related fight here is Microsoft's pylance on the Python side. pyright still exists and many of the components in pylance are still open source, but pylance itself is closed source and bundles closed source tools. (That is pylance is not just a pyright fork, but closed source LSP bridge for pyright + proprietary parts.) It's not without controversy on the Python side as well. At some point it simply becomes questions of stewardship and transparency: How good are they at pointing out the open source parts wrapped inside the closed source LSP bridge? What cadence do they upstream fixes to the open source parts? So far Microsoft's stewardship on the Python side seems strong: pylance has a lot of transparent documentation of all the open source bits. There seems to be a steady upstream flow to pyright for users that prefer to stay entirely with an open source LSP. Microsoft isn't treating it like a competition to "win" and encourages users to make their own choice among the options. Of course, Microsoft doesn't "own" Python in the same way it "owns" .NET so I can definitely understand why there's increased fear that Microsoft won't be as good of a steward with respect to this "competition" with OmniSharp simply because of .NET's past. But in .NET's past this controversy would be happening after Microsoft did all the work in building the closed source LSP replacement. The fact that we're having this discussion now in only an "architectural discussion" state says a lot already about how Microsoft's stewardship and transparency have changed today.