-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Please consider splitting Visual Studio into a separate GitHub project #2656
Comments
@NoelAbrahams, it sounds like you are mainly concerned with our frequency of releases alongside Visual Studio, though you mention
Can you give any specific examples of this? |
When I say "incongruous" I meant that there are many users here who use other IDEs. My post was prompted primarily by the failure to release 1.5 alpha for VS. That just serves to reinforce the impression that VS is now less important. (I was surprised by the fanfare around something called "a sublime text plugin". I wonder how many companies are actually compelled to use that?) For specific issues, I would say #11 should have been fixed a long time ago. There should have been NPM integration, TypeScript unit test projects etc. |
With Roslyn and .NET being OSS now we've been thinking about whether it would be possible to put the Visual Studio component on GitHub. It's certainly incongruous to have the uninteresting 'glue' part of the VS TypeScript experience be closed-source when everything else is open. That said, we do work in a large company 🐌 where that requires lots of approval and red tape to make that happen, so it does need some kind of obvious pay-off to justify the work. |
TypeScript ships in-box with Visual Studio, with dependencies on other VS components. That means it ships on VS scheduled; and the Typescript team has no control over that. 1.5 is our biggest release yet, and have packed it with new features. We had two options, wait until a VS release is out to get users to try it out, or get an alpha out on npm and incorporate feedback into the next VS release. and we chose the latter. So far we have got good bug reports and we are working on fixing them.
Over the past year we have delivered a complete rewrite of the TypeScript plugin in Visual Studio with a whole release dedicated to VS experience. We have completely revamped the TypeScript authoring experience in VS. We still have a good portion of the TypeScript team fully dedicated to the TypeScript experience in Visual Studio. We have also made sure that VS users can always update their language service to the latest TypeScript bits from master if they opt into the dev mode.
Tooling has been an important part of the TypeScript value proposition. Our architecture has been based on allowing different tools to utilize Typescript. the sublime text plugin is just another demonstration of that. And so is our public API and tsserver, integration with web editors and our npm package.
I agree. Library projects (and P2P in general) is specifically something that we always talk about. Over the last year we have invested in a lot of infrastructure work, almost rewriting everything we have shipped in 1.0 while still delivering new features. it is just that these are large undertakings and you need to lay some ground work before tackling them.
As @RyanCavanaugh mentioned we have and still are considering this. |
That is the problem. What's the point of a plugin if every release of the plugin requires a corresponding release of the host? The experience of installing the complete Visual Studio is not ideal; installing VS 2015 CTP5 took up two hours of my time. When other IDEs install in 5 minutes then there is a reason for people to start considering alternatives.
A piece of software is only as good as the last release. I am disappointed that I am not able to try out the new features from the 1.5 alpha.
This is normally quoted as an alternative. But it's just not feasible to require everyone to fiddle with registry settings when one is working in a team. I hope these comments are taken in the best possible light. I think VS is an outstanding product and would like to see these user experience issues (with installation and release management) addressed. |
@NoelAbrahams I'm not sure how moving any part of TypeScript to another github project solves any of the issues you are concerned about.
Moving TS VS support into another GitHub project will not change that in any way.
I understand your disappointment. But moving to another GitHub project will not have changed that.
Could you expand on this. Why is it not feasible? It should take a minute for someone to do this. There is even a provided powershell script to do this in seconds. And now you can try out the latest bits. |
It would be nice if in Visual Studio we could customize the TypeScript Language Services source code location like in Web Storm. This would have allowed VS users (I'm part of them) to try the 1.5 alpha... |
I would look at the NTVS project on GitHub as an example. The TS plugin should be independent of the Visual Studio release cycle. If we look at the issue list for NTVS, they are all (naturally) dedicated to Visual Studio. The suggestion is to have a similar team dedicated to VS-only issues.
We want to avoid situations of "A: This is not compiling" "B: Go check your registry, if that fails go fiddle with x, y, z". |
@yahiko00 that is precisely what Dev Mode enables. See Using a custom language service file |
@DanielRosenwasser Oh, thanks a lot! I didn't know this Dev Mode. |
@NoelAbrahams I think an important part of my response was missed. Could you clarify how moving to another github project would actually solve the issues you're complaining about? Your post merely reiterates that this is what you would like to happen, but it fails to address how doing this will actually address the issues.
The TS plugin has components that are VS version neutral, and which can be updated independently of the VS release cycle. The parts have already been mentioned, and links have already been provided that enable you to update them if you want to. That functionality exists today and is available to you. The TS plugin also has components that depend on parts of VS, and thus are tied to the VS release cycle. For example, unsurprisingly, we depend heavily on the VS extensibility SDK. We also depend heavily on the Roslyn project. Indeed, it's because of that dependency that we were able to 'light up' so many nice features as briefly outlined here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/typescript/archive/2014/11/12/announcing-typescript-1-3.aspx Because of this, we have concurrent development and release cycles. When VS ships it carries the appropriate TS components with VS dependencies with it. It also carries our latest stable components that are VS neutral. Then, in the interim period between VS releases, you can still update the VS neutral components so you can try out some of our latest works, without needing to wait for VS to ship that version with it. So, back to your request. Moving to a new github project won't address your complains because:
|
I don't see how moving to another github project changes that. The conversation will simply transition to: |
The point is your team is there to provide a service to users. And I as a user am not happy. Let me put it this way: If I go to a nice hotel and the receptionist books me in, but then hands me some sheets and asks me to go make my own bed then I'm not going to be very happy. That is the effect your response has on me - I don't really care about the problems the hotel is having: I just want good service. I am merely suggesting that having a dedicated GitHub project may ensure that VS users get better attention. When I go to a nice hotel I expect good service. If I don't get that service I go to another hotel. |
@NoelAbrahams, we have heard your feedback, and we will definitely keep it in mind as we are planning future releases. We are sorry for any frustration this release might have caused. Please do keep sending your feedback our way; we are always looking to making the TypeScript experience better. |
Have to agree with @NoelAbrahams, would be nice to see the Visual Studio plugin as its own github project. Just recently: While dev mode is nice, where do I report errors as I mess with language service or discover bugs? Even better would be open sourcing the plugin or part of it to understand what's happening. |
I understand @CyrusNajmabadi points and I'm glad he posted them here!
You can call |
On this repository; please report bugs here for anything that you catch - we have a If you're not familiar with @DickvdBrink's suggestion, you can |
In the Microsoft/TypeScript project.
That would definitely be nice to have. It's something we're looking into. |
@jbondc Can you please file bugs on the asserts you're seeing. Ideally, please include the relevant Event Viewer information when this happens. There should usually be two items (back to back) in the even viewer. One giving information on the crash, and one giving information on the data submitted to MS about the crash. With that we can attempt to track down what happened. |
Has this been considered lately? Currently VS2013 does not have TS 2.0 support, it would be great to let the community add it for the glory of TS. |
We're transitioning toward Language Service Protocol in the long-term and hopefully the "VS" component of TS eventually vanishes into an uninteresting thin layer. This is still on our radar but not something we're going to be able to make a commitment on until some other things outside our control move. |
With the proliferation of IDEs for writing TypeScript it is becoming increasingly incongruous to raise VS issues on the TypeScript GitHub project.
The failure to release a VS update for the 1.5 alpha leaves VS users in a rather sorry state.
I propose a dedicated GitHub project for the TypeScript Visual Studio plugin, with dedicated people to ensure a VS release is made available for every single TypeScript release, and also to ensure the VS plugin remains competitive in the current environment.
We are fast approaching a stage where we use VS for only TypeScript and switching to alternatives is probably viable for many in our position.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: