Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft subtracts C/C++ extension from VS Code forks

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 354 posts

Re: Microsoft subtracts C/C++ extension from VS Code forks

#261

Post by EasyMark »

Aloha wrote: post #82
ohgr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Was a Microsoft dev from 1992 until 2017. Won’t touch them now because I spent my entire career rewriting rug pulls. It paid off a mortgage and fed me well but it was a bad outcome for my orgs and customers. If anyone remembers WCF/AppFabric/WWF and Silverlight, that was the last stack I rewrote someone out of the shit on.

I’m still dealing with the long goodbye of a silverlight app which now must be somehow ported.

if there's an escape hatch you should probably use it. In my experience companies never support you during rewrites "well why don't you just convert the code to X language" almost never works on a huge project, it takes a ground up approach, and relying on the old stuff as "more like guidelines than the actual law"

Re: Microsoft subtracts C/C++ extension from VS Code forks

#262

Post by formerly_proven »

Certified wrote: post #236

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Microsoft knew they would never get significant market share unless they offered open source alternatives that let you circumvent the telemetry in the early days of VScode. Embrace. The acquisition of github was part of this strategy. They made an ecosystem that sucked a lot of plugin developer talent into their ecosystem. Extend. Now the market share is firmly in their grasp and competit…

Microsoft couldn't have telegraphed their intentions more clearly if they tried, yet tons and tons of people and organizations fell for it (again!).

VS Code source is under MIT, but the built product is under an EULA - and all Microsoft extensions are under an EULA that requires the use of the EULA build.

As has been already posted multiple times here... https://ghuntley.com/fracture/

Re: Microsoft subtracts C/C++ extension from VS Code forks

#263

Post by surajrmal »

int_19h wrote: post #173
kentonv wrote: post #39

The clangd extension is better anyway, and is open source. The Microsoft C++ extension is not open source; not sure what people were expecting here.

It's one thing for it to not be open source. It's another thing for its license to explicitly prohibit its use with any other IDE, even if it's API-compatible, even if it's literally exactly VSCode recompiled with another name. And it's yet another thing to proactively insert checks for that.

Why? If I listed an app on the google play store but intentionally limited it from working when installed by alternative means (eg someone relisting it on an alternative app store without my permission) would that be problematic? Why is this different?

Re: Microsoft subtracts C/C++ extension from VS Code forks

#264

Post by notnmeyer »

dharmab wrote: post #101
notnmeyer wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

zed is veerrrry good. i really appreciate the clean ui compared to vscode and its ilk. don’t love the pricing they just announced though. i don’t mind paying for my tools, but it not being unlimited scares me off slightly.

I think it's totally fair for them to charge for an optional feature that requires a cloud service. And if you don't like their pricing you can use a different provider, including self-hosted ones.

absolutely agree

Re: Microsoft subtracts C/C++ extension from VS Code forks

#265

Post by IshKebab »

rs186 wrote: post #8

The intellisense from clangd is much better and faster than the Microsoft C++ extension, if you can set up a compile_commands.json. Although debugging still relies on the Microsoft extension. Although I don't think it's going to be hard to create an extension just for debugging (if it does not already exist?)

I agree. It's way better. You can use the CodeLLDB extension for debugging.

https://github.com/vadimcn/codelldb

Re: Microsoft subtracts C/C++ extension from VS Code forks

#266

Post by trimbo »

mitchitized wrote: post #247
kyrra wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your analogies are wrong. There is a direct cost to Microsoft that these companies are pushing on them. Specifically around bandwidth. Microsoft does not need to provide access for downloading plugins from their servers to anyone else.

It is a public website and a public service - it's like saying "hey I got free lemonade here, but you can't have it unless I decide I like you first." If you're giving something away online for free, then you are giving it away for free. I'll never understand the cognitive dissonance of "conditionally free". A more important question is where do we draw the line of abuse? If someone links to my website and that's oka…

"Bathroom for customers only" is a completely reasonable ask from a business owner, and is what Microsoft is doing here.

Re: Microsoft subtracts C/C++ extension from VS Code forks

#267

Post by jen20 »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #252
jenadine wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard not to rely on Microsoft. Open source project hosted on GitHub, for the network effect. Use Rust which also rely on GitHub for crates.io

> Open source project hosted on GitHub, for the network effect. > Use Rust which also rely on GitHub for crates.io It is a very good idea to get rid of both as far and soon as possible. And, as I wrote at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43793095 in some circles it already became very fashionable to call GitHub "ShitHub" and somewhat look down upon open-source projects that have their central repository on GitHub…

> it already became very fashionable to call GitHub "ShitHub"

You’ve said this a few times, without stating which circles? I assume mostly among four-year-olds given the level of wit involved?

Re: Microsoft subtracts C/C++ extension from VS Code forks

#268

Post by gkbrk »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #252
jenadine wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard not to rely on Microsoft. Open source project hosted on GitHub, for the network effect. Use Rust which also rely on GitHub for crates.io

> Open source project hosted on GitHub, for the network effect. > Use Rust which also rely on GitHub for crates.io It is a very good idea to get rid of both as far and soon as possible. And, as I wrote at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43793095 in some circles it already became very fashionable to call GitHub "ShitHub" and somewhat look down upon open-source projects that have their central repository on GitHub…

> it already became very fashionable to call GitHub "ShitHub"

I talk to a lot of people developing both open-source, and proprietary software. Some of those are on GitHub, others on SourceHut, others on Codeberg. I have never heard, not even once, a single person other than you use the word ShitHub.

Maybe it's used in some obscure circle you are in, but it's nowhere close to fashionable.

Re: Microsoft subtracts C/C++ extension from VS Code forks

#269

Post by dmix »

electroly wrote: post #71
londons_explore wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is worth the long term risk. Either you don't get caught and can move faster, or you get caught and the penalty is usually small and a long way down the line, by which time your company will have either folded or grown enough to pay without difficulty.

That's the play when your adversary is regulation--the government moves slowly, court cases move even slower, and you can grease the wheels politically. That is not the scenario here. Cursor is being hunted by an extremely motivated corporate competitor. Cursor has been leeching the gorilla's blood and the gorilla finally noticed. Microsoft doesn't (necessarily) need the law here. They have it if they need it, but th…

This would only be a major issue if most development tooling was controlled by Microsoft. There's a huge market for Cursor even without microsoft's C/C++ intellisense plugins and the open source community will adapt quickly if it's gone.

The risks around proxying to the marketplace are real but that doesnt seem to be an issue yet. It also continues lock-in to VSCode which benefits Microsoft so they might not care.

Re: Microsoft subtracts C/C++ extension from VS Code forks

#270

Post by infecto »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #244
infecto wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand this argument. So because MSFT is large and has healthy margins they should eat the cost?

> So because MSFT is large and has healthy margins they should eat the cost? If MSFT weren't willing to bear the cost, they wouldn't use the "app store" concept (marketplace) for VS Code.

I don’t understand this line of thinking. Because they run a marketplace for Vs code they should also support paywalled forks?
Post reply on HN