4 ms·

This doesn't really seem like news to me. I've never met anybody doing real development in the .NET world who didn't have a paid copy of VS.NET. With BizSpark

This doesn't really seem like news to me. I've never met anybody doing real development in the .NET world who didn't have a paid copy of VS.NET. With BizSpark or similar, you're looking at something like $400 total to get as many copies of VS.NET as you need for your entire team. And all the other dev tools everybody needs. And Windows licenses for all their boxes. And Office. And everything else Microsoft makes. So even assuming a team size of one, it's still closer to free than it is to a day's worth of your bill rate. Considering how much better the paid version of VS.NET is than the "Express" version, it's not even something worth thinking about. Given that, the fact that the Free version does this or doesn't do that has pretty much zero bearing on the life of a guy writing software on the Microsoft stack.

gurkendoktor 14y ago
> This doesn't really seem like news to me. I've never met anybody doing real development in the .NET world who didn't have a paid copy of VS.NET. For C/C++ hobbyists and Open Source developers, MSVC used to be the compiler of choice on Windows. The Ruby community has embraced mingw more and more, and I think everyone else will (and should) do the same. Breaks my heart because MSVC has good C++11 support. I don't think any professional will care about this. In fact, it's probably good news for them (us). Any barrier to entry means slightly less competition.
- jasonkester 14y ago
  Why is your heart breaking? The new version still supports c++, right? Just because it's a hobby doesn't mean you can't pay a little money for things. I have lots of hobbies that are way more expensive than computer programming. One surfboard costs more than you'll pay for a full VS.NET license. Over the 4 years this next version will keep you going, I'll go through thousands of dollars worth of rock shoes. A gamer will go through thousands of dollars worth of games. A mountain biker will replace his $1500 bike in that timeframe, and a snowboarder will rack up thousands of dollars in lift tickets and baggy trousers. All these things have in common that: A. They're enjoyable, and: B. They cost money. Programming computers is no different. If you want to do it, and there's a good new tool out that costs money, why would you not buy it?
  - chc 14y ago
    They would probably be willing to pay a little money. $600 is not a little money for normal people. Pointing out that it's not a lot of money for rich people seems a little beside the point. I don't think anybody's all that worried about the wealthy.
    - jasonkester 14y ago
      I never said anything about rich/poor people. In fact, the hobbies I mention are all "poor people" hobbies that I and lots of my friends indulged in back in our <$40k/year days. Also, take a quick glance upwards and notice that it's $400 for VS.NET + Everything Microsoft Makes. So if you would have otherwise spend $189 to have Office bundled in with your computer, you can think of the IDE costing ~$200. Or four video games (as in, one per year). If programming is something you value doing, that's not a lot. Poor or otherwise.
  - gurkendoktor 14y ago
    > Why is your heart breaking? I used the free MSVC2003 compiler during high school, when $600 was half a year's worth of pocket money, and when mingw didn't even link a basic UNICODE program properly. I eventually saved up enough money to buy the "full" MSVC2003 Standard for ~€130, what later became Express. I never made a single penny off it. I bet many people who got into programming through hobby gamedev lived a similar life. After making the switch to OS X during university, I often used the (now free) MSVC Express for playing around with Open Source on Windows. Or to compile a copy of my game for Windows friends. Tiny stuff that's not worth three-digit sums. If I can't toy around and be happy on Windows, then I'll forever stay in Apple wonderland. Both scenarios will be too expensive to imagine now. If anything, people will use mingw instead. And that's what breaks my heart - I really wish people could use the awesome MSVC2011 compiler instead, with all the new C++ features we have been looking forward to for years. MSVC2010 is still good enough, but for how long?
    - gurkendoktor 14y ago
      Seems mingw's C++11 support is getting there too - though I couldn't find a definitive list. That solves some of my heartache at least.
- hkarthik 14y ago
  >> I don't think any professional will care about this. In fact, it's probably good news for them (us). Any barrier to entry means slightly less competition. I think it's unfortunate that the professionals would see this as a good thing. New developers to the MS Stack can bring a fresh perspective with newer, more unique approaches to solving problems. That leads to a healthier ecosystem.
- dthunt 14y ago
  I don't actually care that much about compilers - as others have mentioned, there are several options out there. I also am not particularly concerned about updated C++ feature support - the reality is that there are still a ton of really terrible windows developers out there who aren't familiar with the windows application model, security models, best practices, and have no idea how servicing works. When people start complaining about not having functors, or some other language feature, I tend to get a little irritated, because this is not the big problem with software development on Windows. If someone doesn't want to use VS2008 Express, I will note that there is always WDK, which last I checked shipped with cl.exe, and will almost certainly continue to do so.
  - gurkendoktor 14y ago
    As I said, I don't think existing professionals will care about this. But people are not born as professionals. Many end up that way because they entered an ecosystem for fun. The functor playground I grew up on has a "suits only" sign now.
fauigerzigerk 14y ago
What would be news is if Microsoft is moving from growing their platform to milking it for cash. I think you can see some of that in many of their decisions. But there's another, more plausible, explanation for this particular move. They want people to create Metro apps and making it cheaper to do that creates an incentive.
bad_user 14y ago
still closer to free than it is to a day's worth of your bill rate That's a really fucked up definition of "free", which gets repeated often by Windows developers, but it isn't anything more than a delusion. And btw, remember that not all of us live on Silicon Valley's fat salaries ;-)
- onedev 14y ago
  Some of us are also budding students who like experimenting with different things and price is most likely a barrier to entry (it sure it for me).
  - dav-id 14y ago
    Students can get VS and other MS software for free through various programs such as MSDNAA
    - cycojesus 14y ago
      Some of us (neither students nor fat salary receiving end) are struggling to make ends meet and try their hand at app development as a way out of struggle.
      - dagw 14y ago
        If you're a small, newly founded, company you can get a free copy of Visual Studio Ultimate, together with all the documentation and training material you need, by signing up for BizSpark
      - aschearer 14y ago
        According to the article you can continue to try your hand at app development for Windows 8 and Windows Phone 7 using the free "Express" version of Visual Studio.
    - bad_user 14y ago
      The software distributed through MSDNAA is (1) always a little outdated and (2) only for non-commercial development.

gurkendoktor 14y ago

> This doesn't really seem like news to me. I've never met anybody doing real development in the .NET world who didn't have a paid copy of VS.NET. For C/C++ hobbyists and Open Source developers, MSVC used to be the compiler of choice on Windows. The Ruby community has embraced mingw more and more, and I think everyone else will (and should) do the same. Breaks my heart because MSVC has good C++11 support. I don't think any professional will care about this. In fact, it's probably good news for them (us). Any barrier to entry means slightly less competition.

jasonkester 14y ago
Why is your heart breaking? The new version still supports c++, right? Just because it's a hobby doesn't mean you can't pay a little money for things. I have lots of hobbies that are way more expensive than computer programming. One surfboard costs more than you'll pay for a full VS.NET license. Over the 4 years this next version will keep you going, I'll go through thousands of dollars worth of rock shoes. A gamer will go through thousands of dollars worth of games. A mountain biker will replace his $1500 bike in that timeframe, and a snowboarder will rack up thousands of dollars in lift tickets and baggy trousers. All these things have in common that: A. They're enjoyable, and: B. They cost money. Programming computers is no different. If you want to do it, and there's a good new tool out that costs money, why would you not buy it?
- chc 14y ago
  They would probably be willing to pay a little money. $600 is not a little money for normal people. Pointing out that it's not a lot of money for rich people seems a little beside the point. I don't think anybody's all that worried about the wealthy.
  - jasonkester 14y ago
    I never said anything about rich/poor people. In fact, the hobbies I mention are all "poor people" hobbies that I and lots of my friends indulged in back in our <$40k/year days. Also, take a quick glance upwards and notice that it's $400 for VS.NET + Everything Microsoft Makes. So if you would have otherwise spend $189 to have Office bundled in with your computer, you can think of the IDE costing ~$200. Or four video games (as in, one per year). If programming is something you value doing, that's not a lot. Poor or otherwise.
- gurkendoktor 14y ago
  > Why is your heart breaking? I used the free MSVC2003 compiler during high school, when $600 was half a year's worth of pocket money, and when mingw didn't even link a basic UNICODE program properly. I eventually saved up enough money to buy the "full" MSVC2003 Standard for ~€130, what later became Express. I never made a single penny off it. I bet many people who got into programming through hobby gamedev lived a similar life. After making the switch to OS X during university, I often used the (now free) MSVC Express for playing around with Open Source on Windows. Or to compile a copy of my game for Windows friends. Tiny stuff that's not worth three-digit sums. If I can't toy around and be happy on Windows, then I'll forever stay in Apple wonderland. Both scenarios will be too expensive to imagine now. If anything, people will use mingw instead. And that's what breaks my heart - I really wish people could use the awesome MSVC2011 compiler instead, with all the new C++ features we have been looking forward to for years. MSVC2010 is still good enough, but for how long?
  - gurkendoktor 14y ago
    Seems mingw's C++11 support is getting there too - though I couldn't find a definitive list. That solves some of my heartache at least.
hkarthik 14y ago
>> I don't think any professional will care about this. In fact, it's probably good news for them (us). Any barrier to entry means slightly less competition. I think it's unfortunate that the professionals would see this as a good thing. New developers to the MS Stack can bring a fresh perspective with newer, more unique approaches to solving problems. That leads to a healthier ecosystem.
dthunt 14y ago
I don't actually care that much about compilers - as others have mentioned, there are several options out there. I also am not particularly concerned about updated C++ feature support - the reality is that there are still a ton of really terrible windows developers out there who aren't familiar with the windows application model, security models, best practices, and have no idea how servicing works. When people start complaining about not having functors, or some other language feature, I tend to get a little irritated, because this is not the big problem with software development on Windows. If someone doesn't want to use VS2008 Express, I will note that there is always WDK, which last I checked shipped with cl.exe, and will almost certainly continue to do so.
- gurkendoktor 14y ago
  As I said, I don't think existing professionals will care about this. But people are not born as professionals. Many end up that way because they entered an ecosystem for fun. The functor playground I grew up on has a "suits only" sign now.

fauigerzigerk 14y ago

What would be news is if Microsoft is moving from growing their platform to milking it for cash. I think you can see some of that in many of their decisions. But there's another, more plausible, explanation for this particular move. They want people to create Metro apps and making it cheaper to do that creates an incentive.

bad_user 14y ago

still closer to free than it is to a day's worth of your bill rate That's a really fucked up definition of "free", which gets repeated often by Windows developers, but it isn't anything more than a delusion. And btw, remember that not all of us live on Silicon Valley's fat salaries ;-)

onedev 14y ago
Some of us are also budding students who like experimenting with different things and price is most likely a barrier to entry (it sure it for me).
- dav-id 14y ago
  Students can get VS and other MS software for free through various programs such as MSDNAA
  - cycojesus 14y ago
    Some of us (neither students nor fat salary receiving end) are struggling to make ends meet and try their hand at app development as a way out of struggle.
    - dagw 14y ago
      If you're a small, newly founded, company you can get a free copy of Visual Studio Ultimate, together with all the documentation and training material you need, by signing up for BizSpark
    - aschearer 14y ago
      According to the article you can continue to try your hand at app development for Windows 8 and Windows Phone 7 using the free "Express" version of Visual Studio.
  - bad_user 14y ago
    The software distributed through MSDNAA is (1) always a little outdated and (2) only for non-commercial development.