No way, it sucks when you've got a monolith full of unnecessary gadgetry. Right now VSCode is already getting pretty bloated w/ builtins

I could not understand why anyone would be happy if VSCode came with 50 core un-installable plugins and none of them were useful to you, since everyone has slightly different projects they're working on. It would be inefficient and it wouldn't cater to a larger user base.

There's a happy middle ground that far too projects choose: building a modularized system, but distributing core, currated plugins with the system.

Effectively, I don't care if I receive a batteries-included product where the batteries are pre-installed and on-demand loaded, vs one where they're permanently installed.

This is the difference between an opinionated vs non-opinionated IDE

You seem to prefer opinionated, where other people like the fact they can pick and choose from various plugins to my their IDE their own, and if they do not like the default implementation of a feature there likely is another plugin that may work for them.

For example there are a couple of git plugins, all of them act slighty different based on the workflow of the users of that plugin, if MS came in and said "No this is how git workflow is in VSCode and no other way is possible" that would turn off alot of users

Further you stated another glaring problem, Jetbrians mikes IDE's plural, specialized for each lang they are targeting, VSCode needs to work with many lang, there is not a VSCode:Python edition, and VSCode:Powershell edition, etc et c etc

It is just VSCode and plugins add the Languages you need / want support for

I thought that until I realised IntelliJ Ultimate is really IntelliJ + WebStorm + PHPStorm + RubyMine + PyCharm + Goland and with plugins you're covered for most major PLs except C,C++ and C# which require 2 separate IDEs.

And Swift/Objective-C require AppCode. They all have a fantastic SQL/database admin tool built in as well.

JetBrains has Rider for C#

Yeah but you need to pay separately because it’s based on ReSharper, there’s no .NET plug-in for IDEA Ultimate.

But if your buying the full version, then the full library is only another £100 to begin with.

Cheaper for personal use, and free for students.

https://www.jetbrains.com/idea/buy/#commercial?billing=yearl...

There's also the issue of managing separate apps which I find to be a pain.

"only" another £100? That's a lot of cash.

That depends on perspective. If you are a professional programmer using JetBrains tools as daily drivers then I think think £100 over the InteliJ price is pretty reasonable to get access to their entire library of tools.

Consultants make at £400 day here, dotnet devs usually more.

If you are a hobbiest, it's cheaper.

And the costs decrease each year.

If you are saying £100, then it sounds like it would offer you money for value, so it's probably not for you.

> I'd be more interested in VSCode if Microsoft's strategy was to relentlessly implement the most popular plugins into VSCode natively such that the most commonly used and needed functions were built in and did not require plugins.

microsoft already has an IDE like this for their core languages; it's called visual studio. it's kinda bloated, but it's still a great tool for languages that microsoft has deigned to grace with its direct attention. for anything else, you're SOL; the plugin ecosystem is pretty limited for VS. the more VSCode reimplements plugins "natively" (isn't it all JS anyway?), the less it has a reason to exist.

It’s pretty easy though. You open a Python file, it asks if you want Python plug-in installed. Then you’re pretty much done except specifying your virtualenv. If you have linter settings it will ask if you want the linter installed.

The big thing with Jetbrains is the cost. PyCharm is $9-$25/month and VSCode is free

> If you have linter settings it will ask if you want the linter installed.

And then, despite automatically identifying the local python venv, install the linter elsewhere so it doesn't work.

But it integrates it wonderfully when you install the linter yourself, or if you use the bundled pylance.

Or, better yet, to re-implement the best plugins as installed by default plugins that could then be enabled/disabled by the user.

>> I'd be more interested in VSCode if Microsoft's strategy was to relentlessly implement the most popular plugins into VSCode natively such that the most commonly used and needed functions were built in and did not require plugins.

Unlike the FANG companies, Microsoft doesn't tend to rip the carpet out from under independent developers like that.

Wasn’t there recently a thread were Microsoft interviewed someone that has a third party dev tool, declined to hire him and then recreated the same tool with almost the same name without acknowledgement?

You mean the app that he named almost the same name as another, long-existing Microsoft product? (NuGet) It's not like AppGet was developed in a vacuum. And it's definitely nowhere near the situation like Facebook cloning Virtual Desktop, threatening to crush the original developer if he didn't join them, and naming it the exact same thing.

Right, but they would. Plugins aren't paid right now, so all I'd think it would take would be Microsoft saying "hey, people like your plugin, we'll pay you to maintain it, and if you don't want to maintain it, we'll inhouse it."

To avoid left-pad situations

I don't know about VS Code, but in native VS, there are lots of paid plugins. There just isn't a store. You buy the plugins from the developers.

It's all open source. Is there anyone making money from VS Code plugins? Why does it matter if MS "steals" the code?

>Unlike the FANG companies, Microsoft doesn't tend to rip the carpet out from under independent developers like that.

No, they roll them into the carpet and sodomize them like they did with Keivan Beigi and at most just sheepishly say sorry after some public outcry.