21–30 of 267 posts
Pretty encouraging sign given the drama the last few days. In addition to the community response, it’s pretty clear that a number of dotnet and MSFT team members went to bat hard for this. Really happy to see that they won out.
I just wrote a comment on the other post about this. I wonder how this decision was made _behind the scenes_. Either some negotiation happened and the Visual Studio team got some concessions (smaller target?) or it was mandated from the top. Both alternatives do not bode well for the VS team.
You saw the same crap with Office vs everything new.
As a small aside to the general discussion, I don't think I've ever seen an accepted reviews list that long. To me that in and of itself speaks volumes about how the development team feels about the business politics going on here.
That's a very odd way to say "modern developers don't use Visual Studio."
The Azure side probably doesn't care about selling Visual Studio, but they care about developer mindshare and reputation. The Visual Studio side seems to be in a more difficult position, I assumed they can just live from the enterprise/everyone else split and focus on enterprise-y stuff to still sell Visual Studio. But it looks a bit to me like VS Code and the .NET cli have become more of a competition than they'd like.
And the worst mistake here might not have been pissing off the .NET community, but pissing of the people working on .NET for Microsoft. I mean in the end this is the same, but pissing off the people working on .NET would result in a much more thorough destruction of trust with the community in the end.
But I have zero inside knowledge here, might just be weird decisions driven by internal politics or whatever.
Pretty encouraging sign given the drama the last few days. In addition to the community response, it’s pretty clear that a number of dotnet and MSFT team members went to bat hard for this. Really happy to see that they won out.
Encouraging? Microsoft demonstrated here that the move wasn't because of quality or that the change was unable to be in the OSS version, they demonstrated that they only act a certain way because of the backlash. If they would have stand their ground, they would have given the image that this change didn't live up to their wanted quality, instead this demonstrated that they are just giving up to peer-pressure because…
It’s nice that they walked back on immediately blowing up the whole .NET ecosystem. But it’s not like everything is fine again. The Foundation is apparently a bit of a mess and the C# debugger is STILL not available on VScode versions built from source. That and that they would ever even consider doing this still discourages serious investment into .NET.
That person who messed up just left the foundation btw.
1. Embrace 2. Extend 3. Extinguish 4. Go to #1
A hot-button issue gets corrected now, but then they continue to make subtler moves. Why say you love open-source if you keep the juicy bits of Visual Studio Code closed-source? More like you love open-source... for making money. Microsoft is a big company with changing microcultures all the time. They alone as a whole should not take credit for their open-source endeavors. In general, big contributor names should be…
The key difference between the two situation is, that the vs code team does it juicy features as a secret project. Dotnet watch was developed, tested and licensed in the public and stripped out last second. VS Code behavior you can accept as a open core or commercial plugin thing. The other thing was just a theft.
On first hand it'd be weird to expect MS to do everything for free
On the other hand the way they handled it (initially they made it free, OSS and promised fanciness) is kinda poor.
On yet another hand maybe they just really sucked at communication, priorities and stuff this time? hard to say.
On yet another hand2 .NET maintainers are really open about a lot of stuff, it's easy to talk to them - let it be asp .net or roslyn/compiler project which makes me giving them the benefit of doubt