241–250 of 267 posts
Even if “now” they listened, they still don’t understand. Developers don’t live and breath Windows and VS. MS continues to push Windows experience first. Look at the joke of VS for Mac…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't dismiss .NET itself so easily. As you can see from this incident, there are elements even within Microsoft that don't inherently value the open source nature of the .NET team! .NET Core/.NET 5+ are already open source and highly philanthropic in nature. That doesn't change just because a completely different team--the Visual Studio team--is profit-oriented.
I learned to program with C# back in 2007. I have been following .NET and C# for more than a decade now, I look back fondly at my time with the language and people there. However, if the team is having this much internal struggle why would I ever come back? Why would I stake my business on another Oracle when there are much better alternatives?
Also, C#/.NET is kind of jack of all trades, you can do anything but a small subset of development where having a garbage collector stays in your way.
As for alternatives, I dislike Java, Python is less performant and not usable for large projects, Rust, Nim, Haskell, Elixir are not as usable and well polished. Kotlin is nice but it does not have any benefit over C#.
I would love for Rust, Nim, Haskell, Elixir to pick up some steam, become more usable, have larger communities, much more libraries. But until then, C#/.NET is the sweeetspot for me. I still dabble in C/C++ from time to time and that makes me grateful C# exists. I am even inclined to double down on my .NET bet by starting using F# along with C# because it feels like a very nice language. It seems to enable even faster development while being more concise and needing less tests written.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not malice. Your non-technical boss who says "well, if we have 3 other developers developing that API with you, it should get it done in one fourth of the time, right?" is not malicious either. But this kind of a boss doesn't "get" it, and neither does Microsoft. They don't seriously understand the mindset behind an open source project, and I don't expect them to in the future either. So I avoid all Microsoft te…
There is nothing "lock-in" about .NET Core/.NET 5+. In fact, as you can see from this whole Hot Reload kerfuffle, even Microsoft themselves doesn't always like the spirit of open source present on their own .NET team! .NET Framework is another story, and was (and still is) tightly coupled to Windows. It's the entire reason .NET Core was started as a separate open source effort. Honestly, we're lucky .NET Core was eve…
Does .NET have some breakthrough features or support that other languages don't have? Are job opportunities better than, say, Java?
I'm not understanding the upside here of following the Microsoft version of Keeping Up with the Kardashians.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any suggestion for alternative systems, which uses this supposedly "real" git flow, paired with reviews? All the git operations you listed work perfectly fine locally on a repo from github, it's only once you want to push to main you have to go through the review-gate and that's configurable. Gitlab works mostly the same as Github, and for both of them you can configure the merge-strategy and PR requireme…
> Do you have any suggestion for alternative systems, which uses this supposedly "real" git flow, paired with reviews? GitLab (I know it works, because I set up this workflow in my company). Before GitLab: Phabricator, Gerrit. > All the git operations you listed work perfectly fine locally on a repo from github ... Irrelevant. GitHub needs to be compatible with Git, not the other way around. This subthread began with…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can diff two tips like so: https://github.com/{org}/{repo}/compare/{commitish1}..{commi... Example: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/compare/0.65-stable...
Those are refs. Not commits. GitHub removes access to the old commits of a branch when the branch is force-pushed (say, after a rebase). I'm interested in comparing the branch in its current state against it's previous state.
The PR interface actually exposes this for force-pushes, but the UI discovery for this is horrible. It turns out that the "force-pushed" part in the little message in the github UI is actually a link. This link points to the diff between the old and the new HEAD of the branch.
As an example you can look at this PR:
https://github.com/JelteF/derive_more/pull/161
It has this little message somewhere down the page:
Monadic-Cat force-pushed the add-unwrap branch from e130dbe to 25235aa 4 months ago
If you then click "force-pushed" in that message you go to the "compare" page, which shows the diff between the two commits:
https://github.com/JelteF/derive_more/compare/e130dbe6b2a429...
Disclaimer: I'm a Micrsoft employee, but don't work on Github. I'm a daily user of Github though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Desktop dead. That would be a nightmare scenario for me as I much prefer coding desktop based apps/games compared to web things. I code web things professionally. It's where the money is. But the fun is in desktop/mobile/console apps/games. It would be more precise to say: Desktop business apps are dead. That is almost 100% true. Some lingering ghosts still exist.
At work we are replacing a huge app which had a C# UI with a micro service based app with a React UI. While the backed is nice, that React UI feels like crap compared to the old UI. The only reason we are using an React UI being that "it's modern". Not every app should be an web app.
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…
> 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. I really dislike this mindset. Sure, it's disappointing that some pieces of VSCode aren't open-sourced, but man, they open-sourced an entire IDE and plugin ecosystem. That's such a fantastic contribution to the open source community, and yet I see comments like yours that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are refs. Not commits. GitHub removes access to the old commits of a branch when the branch is force-pushed (say, after a rebase). I'm interested in comparing the branch in its current state against it's previous state.
tl;dr you can put commit hashes in the place where the parent comment put tags, and your exact use case actually has a dedicated link on the PR page. The PR interface actually exposes this for force-pushes, but the UI discovery for this is horrible. It turns out that the "force-pushed" part in the little message in the github UI is actually a link. This link points to the diff between the old and the new HEAD of the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's becoming less open source now. And they lock away the APIs they use so that you can't reimplement the functionality yourself. Many interesting parts of the Python extension are closed source. AI autocomplete too. Remote development is closed source. What will they pick next? Conditional breakpoints? In-IDE HTML preview?
>Many interesting parts of the Python extension are closed source What stops you or anyone else to reimplement those parts?
Also, sticking to existing APIs is an inherent disadvantage when Microsoft can add whatever APIs meet their exact needs. Nobody could build Remote Development or Live Share until ms did because the APIs didn't exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yep, modern Visual Studio is a terrible experience end-to-end it takes at least 3 minutes to start, the UI designer takes 30+ seconds to appear, and starting your process for debugging takes 10+ seconds every single autocomplete takes a few seconds to appear even opening a 100 line .c file takes 10+ seconds, and they KNOW its bad because it pops up a dialog with a progress bar! this is all on a azure "cloud" instance…
VS2022 takes ~5 seconds to start. Auto complete is milliseconds etc. Starting anything is a couple seconds max. There's something very wrong with your machine. VS2022 is an amazing experience end-to-end.
as I stated, it's a high end VM on Azure, using the official MS OS image
and it does a clean install every 2 weeks (completely clean registry+userprofile), so there's no inherited crap/extensions
meanwhile VScode and jetbrains IDEs on the same VM are perfectly usable