Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Open-Sources Visual Studio Code (visualstudio.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the temperatures-in-hell-continue-to-drop dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Microsoft today unleashed a torrent of news at its Connect(); 2015 developer event in New York City. The company open-sourced code editing software Visual Studio Code, launched a free Visual Studio Dev Essentials program, pushed out .NET Core 5 and ASP.NET 5 release candidates, unveiled Visual Studio cloud subscriptions, debuted the Visual Studio Marketplace, and a lot more. The source for Visual Studio Code is available at GitHub under the MIT license. They've also released an extension (preview) for Visual Studio that facilitates code debugging on Linux.

9 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. VS CODE ! = Visual Studio by jlp2097 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just to avoid any confusion: VS Code is not Visual Studio, VS Code is a web-based code editor.

    1. Re:VS CODE ! = Visual Studio by idontgno · · Score: 4, Informative

      I suspect the confusion arises because TFA (last link in TFS) says that

      The free and cross-platform Chromium-based code editor Visual Studio Code is being open sourced today.

      (Emphasis added)

      "Chromium-based" means it's based on a web browser engine, but that doesn't make it web-based. Its backside could easily be file- or Git-based, as you say.

      Very interesting, and maybe confusing, move by Microsoft.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  2. Re:Linux port now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    It already runs on Linux.

  3. Re:Could we quit with the stupid conf names? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Informative

    Try a Google search for "Connect();" and see what happens. ("Microsoft Connect Conference" ain't even on the first page.)

  4. Re:Visual Studio "in name only" by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Informative

    No it isn't, they both share the same framework but one is not derived from the other: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  5. .NET 5 is just what we need. by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 3, Informative

    Now we can have/need the .NET 3, 4, 4.5 and 5 runtimes all on the same machine, meaning monthly patches will take another half-hour.

    I get it. .NET runtimes recompile and optimize for the environment they're installed on and that's a Good Thing, but as someone who supports a lot of small & medium business who can't justify WSUS or similar, .NET is - by far - the thing I dread seeing not yet applied to a customer's machine. One new runtime a decade would be just fine by me.

    Yes, there's supposed to be a certain degree of backwards-compatibility, but in practice that degree is "not enough that installing Product X doesn't frequently force you to install runtime Y".

    --
    "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
  6. Re:If it's not GPL by nateman1352 · · Score: 4, Informative

    If it's not GPL'ed, it's not open source. And we all know what abhorrence MS harbors for GPL...

    The Open Source Initiative has certified the MIT license as a valid open source license. Look I'm not a huge MS fan either, but they are using a real OSS license here. Just because MIT isn't copyleft doesn't mean its not OSS.

  7. It's FREE and Open Source by barlevg · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's released under the MIT License.

  8. Re:If it's not GPL by Jack9 · · Score: 3, Informative

    > If it's not GPL'ed, it's not open source

    Nope. Open source implies the source that comprises the entirety of the application is available to be inspected. Terms of that access are orthogonal to the phrase, although RMS would insist it must be free as in beer, philosophically or it isn't "open".

    --

    Often wrong but never in doubt.
    I am Jack9.
    Everyone knows me.