6 ms·

Speaking for myself, not MSFT: No, VS is a hellish mix of C++ and .NET. My personal prediction is that VS is unintelligible and will never be ported to anywher

Speaking for myself, not MSFT: No, VS is a hellish mix of C++ and .NET. My personal prediction is that VS is unintelligible and will never be ported to anywhere else.

saosebastiao 11y ago
Isn't it amazing that code can get to that point? I mean, even insanely complex things like space shuttles/stations are understandable. They're documented, compartmentalized in functionality, and maintainable. If they need to build onto it or swap out some functionality, they can do it. It's pretty sad that we let some software turn into behemoths that don't accept change.
- andrewflnr 11y ago
  That physical artifacts only have 3 dimensions probably makes it more difficult to introduce the sort of interconnectedness that tends to make software artifacts harder to understand.
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  I'm working on some C code now... functions that span a thousand (or more!) lines. With all variables declared at the beginning, many having one letter names or being reused at various points. With lots of chunks of code repeated. Shit, one chunk of code writes out a whole XML format to a file. Then the whole thing is is copy and pasted to write the same XML format to a socket. To add to the incomprehensibility, add feature-hacks everywhere. "get_flag" just does "thing->flags[name]". But "set_flag"? Hah, that's about 500 lines long and has all sorts of secret logic. (Does your flag name have a '[' in it? Does it start with "from_" or "to_"? Then you get a special code branch!) And then, just to give you the finger, we'll sprinkle newlines everywhere, seemingly at random, just to make the formatting look bad. Oh, and there won't even be a line of documentation detailing which structs do what, or any general logic or guide at all. But that's OK because code is documentation. Enjoy figuring out the custom "XML preprocessor" invented because "XML is too limited". This project was started fresh because a previous one was "bad". If you don't have someone with a strong sense of aesthetics that can push back on feature hacks and cheap implementations good intentions quickly decay.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    I don’t mind large functions if they make sense. I have one (god) function that is around 900 lines long, but it is just a series of function calls in order that checks each call for errors. Keeping the code linear like this reflects the data flow and makes it easy for me to remember the call order.
meddlepal 11y ago
I'm really hoping JetBrains jumps into the .NET market with a C# IDE.
- StevePerkins 11y ago
  Oh goodness... this. I've been exploring C# lately, and absolutely love the language, but the tooling is abysmal. Let me get this straight. The only serious IDE is Windows-specific, starts at $600 for the typical company (with advanced editions costing more than a small car)... and THEN you need to pay $200 more for a JetBrains add-on called ReSharper, to make it almost as nice as IntelliJ? That's pure insanity. As a Java developer, I could just pay $199 for IntelliJ, period. Or use Eclipse or Netbeans for free, either of which are light-years beyond MonoDevelop (the only real Visual Studio alternative on the .NET side). The .NET ecosystem is WAY overdue for some IDE disruption. VS Code is interesting, but I'm skeptical about how far that will go if they don't eventually open source it. Without some legit alternative to Visual Studio, I fear that all of this .NET Core and cross-plat ASP.NET stuff is a waste of time in terms of retaining or drawing new developers.
  - mythz 11y ago
    Visual Studio 2015 Community is a full-featured world-class IDE that's now free (edit: for OSS or Companies with <$1M Revenue) - which I've now moved to exclusively for all my .NET projects. I also swear by ReSharper (R#) which IMO pays itself in productivity immensely, so the cost isn't an issue for me. I also use IntelliJ IDEA, WebStorm and Android Studio and IMO they don't match the productivity of VS.NET + R# combo, which I'm putting down to C# being a more enjoyable and toolable language. It's important to notice that MS have recently shifted their business model around VS.NET where now what used to be the VS 2012/13 Professional edition is now the VS 2015 Community edition which is now free - they're removing the cost barrier into VS.NET (and forgoing VS.NET Revenues) to get more developers onto the .NET platform which will translate into more Windows Server Licenses and Azure revenues. With this shift, IMO it's fair to assume that if it wasn't for the decade of Windows-specific legacy native code that's in VS.NET they would've also given it away for free on other platforms as well. VS Code is free IDE that they're going to support cross-platform, i.e. I don't think they want to intentionally cripple VS Code to force it as a Gateway drug into VS.NET since that's not their primary revenue strategy for .NET - getting more developers on .NET is. At the same time I won't recommend VS Code until it's Open Source, you're better off using Atom + Omnisharp combo which is OSS and safe from abandonment and IMO protects end-users should they start loading it with crapware or otherwise become poor stewards of the project, since a fork would be possible.

Speaking for myself, not MSFT: No, VS is a hellish mix of C++ and .NET. My personal prediction is that VS is unintelligible and will never be ported to anywhere else.

saosebastiao 11y ago

Isn't it amazing that code can get to that point? I mean, even insanely complex things like space shuttles/stations are understandable. They're documented, compartmentalized in functionality, and maintainable. If they need to build onto it or swap out some functionality, they can do it. It's pretty sad that we let some software turn into behemoths that don't accept change.

andrewflnr 11y ago
That physical artifacts only have 3 dimensions probably makes it more difficult to introduce the sort of interconnectedness that tends to make software artifacts harder to understand.
MichaelGG 11y ago
I'm working on some C code now... functions that span a thousand (or more!) lines. With all variables declared at the beginning, many having one letter names or being reused at various points. With lots of chunks of code repeated. Shit, one chunk of code writes out a whole XML format to a file. Then the whole thing is is copy and pasted to write the same XML format to a socket. To add to the incomprehensibility, add feature-hacks everywhere. "get_flag" just does "thing->flags[name]". But "set_flag"? Hah, that's about 500 lines long and has all sorts of secret logic. (Does your flag name have a '[' in it? Does it start with "from_" or "to_"? Then you get a special code branch!) And then, just to give you the finger, we'll sprinkle newlines everywhere, seemingly at random, just to make the formatting look bad. Oh, and there won't even be a line of documentation detailing which structs do what, or any general logic or guide at all. But that's OK because code is documentation. Enjoy figuring out the custom "XML preprocessor" invented because "XML is too limited". This project was started fresh because a previous one was "bad". If you don't have someone with a strong sense of aesthetics that can push back on feature hacks and cheap implementations good intentions quickly decay.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  I don’t mind large functions if they make sense. I have one (god) function that is around 900 lines long, but it is just a series of function calls in order that checks each call for errors. Keeping the code linear like this reflects the data flow and makes it easy for me to remember the call order.

meddlepal 11y ago

I'm really hoping JetBrains jumps into the .NET market with a C# IDE.

StevePerkins 11y ago
Oh goodness... this. I've been exploring C# lately, and absolutely love the language, but the tooling is abysmal. Let me get this straight. The only serious IDE is Windows-specific, starts at $600 for the typical company (with advanced editions costing more than a small car)... and THEN you need to pay $200 more for a JetBrains add-on called ReSharper, to make it almost as nice as IntelliJ? That's pure insanity. As a Java developer, I could just pay $199 for IntelliJ, period. Or use Eclipse or Netbeans for free, either of which are light-years beyond MonoDevelop (the only real Visual Studio alternative on the .NET side). The .NET ecosystem is WAY overdue for some IDE disruption. VS Code is interesting, but I'm skeptical about how far that will go if they don't eventually open source it. Without some legit alternative to Visual Studio, I fear that all of this .NET Core and cross-plat ASP.NET stuff is a waste of time in terms of retaining or drawing new developers.
- mythz 11y ago
  Visual Studio 2015 Community is a full-featured world-class IDE that's now free (edit: for OSS or Companies with <$1M Revenue) - which I've now moved to exclusively for all my .NET projects. I also swear by ReSharper (R#) which IMO pays itself in productivity immensely, so the cost isn't an issue for me. I also use IntelliJ IDEA, WebStorm and Android Studio and IMO they don't match the productivity of VS.NET + R# combo, which I'm putting down to C# being a more enjoyable and toolable language. It's important to notice that MS have recently shifted their business model around VS.NET where now what used to be the VS 2012/13 Professional edition is now the VS 2015 Community edition which is now free - they're removing the cost barrier into VS.NET (and forgoing VS.NET Revenues) to get more developers onto the .NET platform which will translate into more Windows Server Licenses and Azure revenues. With this shift, IMO it's fair to assume that if it wasn't for the decade of Windows-specific legacy native code that's in VS.NET they would've also given it away for free on other platforms as well. VS Code is free IDE that they're going to support cross-platform, i.e. I don't think they want to intentionally cripple VS Code to force it as a Gateway drug into VS.NET since that's not their primary revenue strategy for .NET - getting more developers on .NET is. At the same time I won't recommend VS Code until it's Open Source, you're better off using Atom + Omnisharp combo which is OSS and safe from abandonment and IMO protects end-users should they start loading it with crapware or otherwise become poor stewards of the project, since a fork would be possible.