Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it.
From: Ed Kaim [MSFT] (edkaim_at_online.microsoft.com)
Date: 03/29/04
- Next message: Jonathan Skinner: "Re: Integrated Windows Authentication"
- Previous message: Daniel Rudy: "Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it."
- In reply to: John Bailo: "Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it."
- Next in thread: John: "Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 01:11:45 -0800
> Great arguments. Except on the java side, you can get the equivalent of
VS
> for free: Eclipse, a product that has all the characteristics you
describe.
> In fact, Eclipse, as the /mother/ of all IDEs should be able to have a c#
> plugin as well. At that point, you get all the efficiency and at zero
> cost.
I don't think Eclipse is the equivalent of VS just yet. Although VS features
are being implemented in Eclipse at a pretty rapid pace, it's unlikely that
.NET Framework support will ever match Visual Studio's support.
Nevertheless, some companies will choose to give up productivity to save a
few thousand dollars.
"John Bailo" <jabailo@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:42R9c.5850$lt2.304@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Ed Kaim [MSFT] wrote:
>
>
> > Microsoft provides the SDKs for free. Microsoft provides Web development
> > tools for free. Microsoft provides millions of lines of sample source
code
> > (and complete projects) and all documentation for free. You don't have
to
> > pay a dime to build apps for Microsoft's platform. If you feel you need
> > Visual Studio, as millions of developers do, then there is cost because
> > Microsoft has to invest in making it better. Much of that cost goes
> > towards product servicing. If you can live without the drastic boost in
> > productivity, support from hundreds of tools partners, and official
> > technical support with a well-defined roadmap, then it's harder to make
> > the case. The only really effective arguments you could make for not
using
> > Visual Studio would be if you need to build cross-platform client
> > applications or if you're trying to take the company down from the
inside.
>
> Great arguments. Except on the java side, you can get the equivalent of
VS
> for free: Eclipse, a product that has all the characteristics you
describe.
> In fact, Eclipse, as the /mother/ of all IDEs should be able to have a c#
> plugin as well. At that point, you get all the efficiency and at zero
> cost.
>
> --
> W '04 <:> Open
- Next message: Jonathan Skinner: "Re: Integrated Windows Authentication"
- Previous message: Daniel Rudy: "Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it."
- In reply to: John Bailo: "Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it."
- Next in thread: John: "Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
