[HN Gopher] Revert "Remove Hot Reload support from dotnet watch"
___________________________________________________________________
Revert "Remove Hot Reload support from dotnet watch"
Author : Codemonkey51
Score : 144 points
Date : 2021-10-23 21:23 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| chrismsimpson wrote:
| I'm developing my own tools in my own language going forward.
| Between the two languages I use professionally (Swift & C#),
| there's enough bloat and secret sauce going in the apparently
| open source sausage I'm still getting indigestion.
| yblu wrote:
| Follow-up blog post from .NET Director:
| https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/net-hot-reload-support...
| ethbr0 wrote:
| >> _We underestimated the number of developers that are
| dependent upon this capability in their environments across
| scenarios, and how the CLI was being used alongside Visual
| Studio to drive inner loop productivity by many._
|
| That's a very odd way to say "modern developers don't use
| Visual Studio."
| oaiey wrote:
| He wrote some "face keeping" Blabla but then the key fact:
| admitting that they made a mistake and misunderstood the
| community wish.
|
| A step in the right direction.
| sbelskie wrote:
| 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.
| zmj wrote:
| High-stakes bets escalated to the public forum just to maintain
| the status quo aren't encouraging - even when the good guys
| win.
| capableweb wrote:
| 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 they don't want to
| lose "developer love".
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| If someone reverts a bad decision, then that's objectively a
| good thing, regardless of the reasons.
| sedatk wrote:
| What's bad about not wanting to lose developer love?
| dgellow wrote:
| Well, at least we cannot say they don't listen to feedbacks.
| fabian2k wrote:
| This feels more like an internal turf war inside Microsoft. The
| general open source strategy with .NET Core and VS Code has been
| running long enough that I don't think it's just a smoke screen.
| But there's probably plenty of different interests inside
| Microsoft that are at least partially in conflict.
|
| 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.
| graycat wrote:
| Thanks! Again, Hacker News has some utility!
|
| For my startup, I typed in 100,000 lines of text, 24,000
| programming language statements, in .NET, maybe 4.0 and not
| _core_ , and got it running apparently as intended.
|
| Then some unpredictable external events got me pulled off the
| work, but now I'm eager to get back to it! Actually am doing
| some _work_ , collecting initial data before the Alpha test
| (hopefully here at Hacker News).
|
| But I didn't use _VS_ -- which I assume abbreviates Visual
| Studio (and not _virtual system_ , _virtual storage_ , or some
| such). I looked at VS, started a _project_ or whatever, got a
| directory with about 50 files, gave up on understanding what
| all those files were for, and, thus, gave up on VS. So, I did
| all the typing for the 100,000 just using my favorite text
| editor -- I was super happy to do that.
|
| But a fast Google search shows some documentation for a .NET
| CORE CLI (command line interface). I tend to like command lines
| because they are explicit and easy to drive with scripts --
| often better on those two criteria than _graphical user
| interfaces_!
|
| So, with a little Google searching, I found
|
| dotnet command
|
| 10/01/2021 7 minutes to read
|
| at https://docs.microsoft.com/en-
| us/dotnet/core/tools/dotnet
|
| which looks like relatively good documentation of some command
| line programs for _building_ .NET CORE applications! Looks
| good!
|
| Soooo, at Hacker News, learned something that I might actually
| use!
| S04dKHzrKT wrote:
| I don't remember how old this is org chart graphic is, but it
| seems like it still applies.
|
| https://i.imgur.com/qZ0RDYw.jpg
| bradfitz wrote:
| Original source: https://bonkersworld.net/organizational-
| charts
| oaiey wrote:
| There are people on record that it was the Azure division head
| Scott Guthrie who gave permission to open source ASP.NET Core
| (which at the time was part of Azure). Later the asp.net team
| merged with the .net team and brought the open sourcing with
| them.
|
| VS has no place anymore. The velocity and mindshare is with VS
| Code. VS with its visual designers had its place .. but desktop
| is dead and Xamarin competes with frameworks without costly
| IDEs.
| creato wrote:
| Has anything ever actually replaced VS?
|
| I've only ever used VS for hobby/side projects, and even 10
| years ago it was leaps and bounds better than what I have to
| use for my professional day to day work now (code completion,
| debugger are the two things that I miss basically every day).
|
| The tools that I use now have these features, but they're
| such a joke in comparison. The code completion has no notion
| of "code", it's just looking for similar words.
| moogly wrote:
| For many workloads (at least .NET), JetBrains Rider.
|
| For C/C++ on Windows, well, you have VS Code and also
| JetBrains CLion, but IMO CLion is surprisingly rougher than
| Rider, even though it's older. You can get stuff done
| though.
| oaiey wrote:
| VS Code and language servers have leveled the game a lot.
| Regular Editing is pretty much on par. Debugging and
| diagnostic they are still strong.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| I use VS and VS Code for different things today. VS is much
| better for something it's made for like a C# project with a
| solution/projects, and VS code is great as something that
| works with an existing file structure like an old Java
| project or a folder full of random Python scripts.
|
| VS Code still has good code completion/etc but it doesn't
| seem able to match the instant responsiveness of VS.
| fabian2k wrote:
| I mean at this point I have truly no idea what I'm talking
| about. But I would always bet on Azure against Visual Studio
| in a fight. The earning potential for Azure is simply far,
| far higher than for Visual Studio. AWS has shown that the
| cloud is a recipe for printing money, and I trust Microsoft
| to follow the money.
| oaiey wrote:
| Yes. And IMHO Azure wins. But there are managers, goals and
| compromises. IMHO this was a compromise. The Azure division
| is interested in a universal available runtime. The tooling
| group provides a free editor but had goals of earning VS
| licenses.
|
| I can only guess but I think Big Scott, lesser Scott and
| Julia will have a meeting soon. The .NET community is at a
| boiling point and they should really avoid a community
| which takes dev productivity in their own hands. Because
| that is the garantueed end of visual studio.
| radicalbyte wrote:
| This is good, but given the amount of terrible decisions in the
| last few weeks from Microsoft I've lost all trust in them. This
| will pass, and they'll sneakily do something else.
|
| It's clear from the reaction of the well known alt.net people
| that this problem is strategic, and coming from above. Nothing in
| this move signifies a change in that strategy.
| aliswe wrote:
| as i mentioned elsewhere in the discussion of this post, the
| chairman or w/e left their position after the debaucle
| tytrdev wrote:
| Weird take IMO. I don't trust MS and strive to stay away from
| their products where possible. Their acquisitions of a lot of
| OSS stuff make that pretty hard these days, though...
|
| But I find it weird to expect perfect decision making out of an
| organization with hundreds of thousands of employees with a
| global influence. I don't know any individuals with perfect
| decision making skills, so when you take the union of that and
| add hierarchy, I certainly wouldn't expect a system of
| perfection. Especially when perfection is defined by some
| relative/personal standard.
|
| I agree with your opinions that Microsoft will do weird stuff
| going forward and that this decision means nothing. It's also
| irrelevant to me since I don't use .NET for absolutely
| anything.
|
| But if your "trust" in an org is based on them not making
| "terrible decisions", I think it may be impossible to actually
| trust any org. Since inevitably at scale every org will make
| bad choices. Not criticizing you, just thinking out loud.
| usui wrote:
| 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 emphasized more, so that we know when they leave Microsoft or
| the project.
| duddyggvrvg wrote:
| I don't understand the complaint when the open-source community
| seem perfectly happy to provide free labor. That's all it ever
| was. The rest like like name emphasis is just culture.
| johnfn wrote:
| > 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.
|
| Man, 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 treat it as if it's negligible and
| somehow want even more? The work they did even includes a bunch
| work on existing plugins they don't even own - I know this
| because my plugin was one which they got their engineers to do
| a couple months of volunteer work on.
|
| If MS wants to retain a few small pieces of tech to pay the
| engineers that make a fantastic IDE and ecosystem free and open
| source for everyone, so be it.
| angelzen wrote:
| Inexorably, the locus of making money moves from using one's
| skill and ability to build software to skimming rent off
| enormous capital investments: billions of ad impressions,
| billions of e-commerce transactions, millions of cloud cpus,
|
| Somebody built awesome software and dares charging money for
| it? Bring on the tar and feathers!
| oaiey wrote:
| 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.
| oaiey wrote:
| I want to extend in this a bit: Scott, Damian, Scott, David,
| Rich, Immo ... If you read this: fight for a clear ahead of
| time separation of commercial and non commercial features.
| Many of us can understand that Microsoft still sells dev
| tools but we do not like bad communication and stuff taking
| away which have been there already (at the same time we also
| think that .NET can only become truly awesome when free tools
| exists ... because fur your competition these exists).
| holografix wrote:
| 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.
| aliswe wrote:
| in large organizations like these there will always be desync
| issues, though.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| At this point, VS needs to be put under VSC management.
|
| You saw the same crap with Office vs everything new.
| blibble wrote:
| 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 with 8 cores, 64gb of
| ram and SSD, with a clean install every 2 weeks
|
| not to mention nearly all of the dialogs are as awful and
| exactly the same as they were in VS6 (e.g. run
| configurations)
|
| and it's super expensive
|
| meanwhile VSC is snappy and free, and the JetBrains IDEs of
| 2011 run rings round it
| tester756 wrote:
| I'm using VS almost everyday, sometimes even 2 or 3
| instances at the time and it does not reflect my
| experience, but the difference is
|
| >even opening a 100 line .c
|
| that I'm using it for C#.
| mrec wrote:
| I haven't used VS in years, but the only time I've seen
| Windows crash to BIOS in the last two decades was during a
| VS install.
| tester756 wrote:
| I'm not sure what to feel
|
| 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
| Etheryte wrote:
| 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.
| wolpoli wrote:
| It would be nice if that's the case, but the reviewers are just
| the general public.
| Etheryte wrote:
| Oh, sorry, my bad in that case. I was not aware that they
| allowed anyone to approve in their repositories.
| dccoolgai wrote:
| All this incident has done for me is to confirm how much _less_
| evil MS is than 1) It used to be. 2) Almost every other Big Tech
| operation these days.
| rmsaksida wrote:
| I don't know how "evil" they are, but this incident made me
| drop any plans of ever building a web project with .NET Core. I
| like C# and would love to find an excuse to use it, but I'm not
| relying on a framework that MS will intentionally cripple
| because of corporate interests.
| dang wrote:
| Recent and related:
|
| _Can we trust Microsoft with open source?_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28968231 - Oct 2021 (223
| comments)
| Hamcha wrote:
| If they want .NET to really go mainstream outside Windows, they
| have to back off pushing for VS so hard.
|
| So far, they have been more convincing in getting me back into
| .NET than they have getting me back into Visual Studio, locking
| .NET features inside VS would just alienate me from both.
| atarian wrote:
| 1. Embrace <-- you are now here
|
| 2. Extend
|
| 3. Extinguish
|
| 4. Go to #1
| solarkraft wrote:
| You haven't updated your slides. They're already at
| "Extinguish" at some points. This was (kind of) about one of
| them.
| oaiey wrote:
| You cannot EEE yourself.
|
| They do a lot of community related crap but this is not EEE.
| pxc wrote:
| and yet Microsoft attempted it, before our very eyes
| MauranKilom wrote:
| Maybe I'm naive, but I fully buy the explanation of "we decided
| to not have it in the OSS version due to constrained resources"
| (if I'm parsing the discussion correctly). That was evidently not
| the smartest move, but attributing it to malice is taking it
| quite a step further.
|
| Change my view.
| oaiey wrote:
| It was done.
|
| It was first done and presented in dotnet watch.
|
| The community contributes a lot, why not letting them maintain
| it.
|
| VS fights a uphill battle to stay relevant.
|
| It empowers VS Code devs to do visual stuff. The only thing VS
| is still good in.
|
| ... Got bored of writing more.
| solarkraft wrote:
| 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.
| aliswe wrote:
| That person who messed up just left the foundation btw.
| sedatk wrote:
| Who's that?
| __s wrote:
| Previous thread from today about .NET hot-reload being removed:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28968231
|
| Always remain vigil
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-23 23:00 UTC)