3 ms·
It sounds to me as though your logic double-flipped at the end of your message... I'm going to try to break it down into propositions: Proposition A: Develop
by wcarss 14y ago
It sounds to me as though your logic double-flipped at the end of your message... I'm going to try to break it down into propositions:
Proposition A: Developers who write windows apps love
Visual Studio.
Proposition B: Developers who NEED Visual Studio can
afford a $500 piece of software.
Proposition C: Other OSes still provide free tools
Proposition D: MSFT spends money on developing this, so
they can choose to charge money for
supplying this
Proposition E: MSFT wants people to make metro apps in a
big way, and not to work on win32 stuff
Conclusion: Charging money for Visual Studio is sensible
Propositions A, B, and D form a coherent argument in support of your conclusion, and Proposition C may be nice to include, but isn't helping here. Proposition E appears to run entirely counter to your point.
edit: as my responder points out, I'm incorrect in this assessment -- proposition E fits into the argument just fine. This is the folly of reading comments before having read the article!
- gecko 14y agoProposition E is actually in line with his point: if you read the article, WinRT development remains free. It's Win32 development only that now requires a paid Visual Studio license. So, in essence, what I read the original poster as saying is: "Visual Studio is sufficiently awesome that full-time developers--the ones who need Win32 support--can easily afford $500. For those who can't, Microsoft is making a deal: they'll give you a free copy of Visual Studio, but it's only good for targeting the new Windows 8 Metro environment. In other words, if you're willing to take the risk of developing for the new hotness that currently has basically zero apps for it, Microsoft will foot the bill. If you want to target the massive installed base that is Windows 7 and younger, you foot the bill." I'm not saying I agree, but the argument is coherent.
- wcarss 14y agoThank you for pointing this out! I tend to read comments before the article to get a feel for the cultural context and perceived value of an article (it filters a lot of linkbait), and then I jumped the gun here. I've added a note to my original comment. After having read it, the article's title really doesn't fit the reality. If you want to develop traditional win32 apps, you can keep using VS2010. VS2011 has all the latest and greatest tech for them, but that's similar to the present divide between Express and Ultimate. This article appears to be trying very hard to frame the debate or sensationalize things. It's fair to point out that if this trend continues into the next generation so that VS2010 becomes a sort of ghetto-compiler it's very bad, but we have no reason to believe right now that it will. Microsoft probably isn't stupid enough to shoot themselves that hard.
- DeepDuh 14y agoHaving spent lots of (too much) time on reddit, your little argument made me twitch a little - only to be relieved in how much nicer it is here. ;)