31–40 of 42 posts
So, is this the Extend part now? Embrace is over? (I don't understand each of the terms of the slogan enough) Side note, I am guessing this means that Vim, Emacs etc using LSP don't get C# intellisense anymore?
Language Server Protocol looks web-based. I'm extremely confused what it has to do with an IDE restricted to one machine.
But now, you can see the usual embrace, extend and extinguish in action. They manage to get a lot of dev to use vscode saying that you don't have to worry as it is open source. Then they made extensions a need. Then they manage to have Gitlab and GitHub give up on alternatives like atom to get a monopoly on code editor. And now the fun could begin!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing that exists today is moving behind a closed-source model. Omnisharp will continue to be open and maintained but it won't be the default anymore.
ecosystem defaults was: open, like ruby, golang or rust ecosystem defaults now: closed, proprietary to ensure the programming language is only useful if you are a paying customer of Visual Studio. See the problem? More at https://isdotnetopen.com/
I don’t see how that’s true since it’s going into VS Code, the free product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have full right to do this. They are still scumbags for doing it. Nobody should be terribly surprised when a giant corporation behaves like a scumbag; it's a fundamental feature of such organizations. We as individuals have the responsibility of shunning them when they do this.
I'm curious, why are they scumbags? Aren't they free to decide how their time and effort is used? Do they have some inherent obligation to work for you for free(which is what open source is)? If you develop some piece of software, and use the open core model, I wouldn't consider you a scumbag.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious, why are they scumbags? Aren't they free to decide how their time and effort is used? Do they have some inherent obligation to work for you for free(which is what open source is)? If you develop some piece of software, and use the open core model, I wouldn't consider you a scumbag.
You speak of them as if they were a person. Microsoft is not a person, so they indeed do not have the same rights as people do. Specifically, they can be called what they are with a far lower threshold than people, especially with the reputation they have accumulated over the decades.
So I'm having trouble figuring out your position: is Microsoft a scumbag for not open sourcing pylance or not?
FWIW, I was, until recently, a daily user of pyright, and it's, by a million miles, the best LSP for python out there. The maintainer of pyright also contributes a LOT towards pushing forward the static typing ecosystem in python. In fact, the most recent PEP in Python static typing was initiated, drafted, and first implemented, by the maintainer of pyright[0].
Microsoft also has hired Guido Van Rossum to work on Python full time.
So I think calling Microsoft scumbags about an aspect of how they engage with the Python ecosystem is not only unfair, but totally misleading.
The comments on this thread did't age well at all... They aren't going closed source and updated the thread to reflect so. Tldr; they are bringing closed source tools to the open source crowd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You speak of them as if they were a person. Microsoft is not a person, so they indeed do not have the same rights as people do. Specifically, they can be called what they are with a far lower threshold than people, especially with the reputation they have accumulated over the decades.
I'm not totally familiar with their past actions, but you specifically called the fact that pylance is not open source (while the "pyright" core is) a "scumbag move", which is what I am arguing is unfair. So I'm having trouble figuring out your position: is Microsoft a scumbag for not open sourcing pylance or not? FWIW, I was, until recently, a daily user of pyright, and it's, by a million miles, the best LSP for pyt…
No. These things are not the same and they should never be equated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not totally familiar with their past actions, but you specifically called the fact that pylance is not open source (while the "pyright" core is) a "scumbag move", which is what I am arguing is unfair. So I'm having trouble figuring out your position: is Microsoft a scumbag for not open sourcing pylance or not? FWIW, I was, until recently, a daily user of pyright, and it's, by a million miles, the best LSP for pyt…
You again talk about individuals and individual behavior and then switch seamlessly into talking about Microsoft. Even worse, you insinuate that dislike of Microsoft behavior is equal to dislike of individual Microsoft-adjacent peoples’ behavior. No. These things are not the same and they should never be equated.
If one wants to evaluate Microsoft's moral standing with regards to their participation in the Python ecosystem, one must take into account the work done on the Python ecosystem by Microsoft's salaried employees, in their working hours, no?