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.
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.
Since I know it and am familiar with it, I make my employer pay for a commercial license at work. In the grand scheme of things, it is not that expensive in a commercial setting.
VS Code is great, but I do not think it is a comprehensive replacement for Visual Studio proper when doing full stack .NET development.
Though it seems MS actively disallows employees to come n tribute to them.
If you do GUI work, you pretty much have to use VS. :-/
It's usable for sure but the development it's not as fast as in Visual Studio.
I still use VS Code if I want to modify some files like XML, json, yaml, and I don't want to fire another instance of Visual Studio for that.
As others have already pointed out, OmniSharp is "good enough", but what's built into Visual Studio is still a lot better.
Even with extensions, VS Code feels like an text editor.
My only gripe is not supporting remote development but it's in the works.
Attaching a price to your ability to onboard a language with your favorite workflow changes how you view that language and the motives of its maintainers when compared to the alternatives for that platform. Java has no such barrier to adoption on Linux, for example, because IntelliJ happens to have a community edition.
Are you paid for your work? Why shouldn't the developers of development tools be?
[1] https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community
[2] https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/license-terms/mlt031819/