I didn't say the project is bad. I commented that the situation is a bit unfortunate. There's a difference between that and "negging somebody's contribution".
> If you want it done your way, you do it
To be clear, I've seen this argument made about lots of open source projects, and it's always discouraging to discourse. Sometimes that's intended, but I think in this case — as in most — it's merely neither here nor there. As you can see by my grandparent comment, I have nothing against the authors building their project however they like. In fact, if I demanded that they change the way it's done, that'd be in line with what you're accusing me of. I did no such thing.
> I'm sure they'd happily accept contributions that enabled it to run outside of VS
The entire point of my grandparent comment was to show how the article strongly suggests that's unlikely. And again, for the third time, that's absolutely fine. As fine as the unlikelihood of the Linux kernel allowing contributions in Rust, or even C++.
I'm not complaining. I'm just pointing out your misreading.
Sorry. Sloppy antecedent. It being an "operating system construction kit," not "it" being Cosmos.
Barring active dangers such as security malpractice it is absolutely, positively shitty to neg somebody's freely-made-available public contribution because you don't like the OS it runs on (and I don't; I don't have a Windows development environment myself!). They're doing it for free and they're not doing it for you. If you want it done your way, you do it; I'm sure they'd happily accept contributions that enabled it to run outside of VS on other OSes and the underlying runtimes that Cosmos uses seem to be available on Mac and Linux.