|
I'm accessing the internet via a tethered connection so I have to wait until I get home (to avoid using up the data). 
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Yes... If you do it in the way documented on MS's site...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
|
|
|
|
|
VS Code is written in Electron[^] so it has no dependencies on the .NET platform.
|
|
|
|
|
NOPE, not at all...
Code is just an editor, like sublime or Atom, nothing else.
You can use code to work on anything from JS/Node through to bash shell scripts, so you need to decide what plugins you want, based on the work your intending to do.
As for the run times, it's really easy.
Just go to
.NET Downloads for Linux, macOS, and Windows
Select your OS (Windows/Linux/Mac)
Click on "Install .NET Core SDK"
Select your distribution from the drop down, and then follow the instructions your given.
Once you install the package source and everything else you need, from that point on you only ever need to type
"dotnet new <projecttypehere>"
typing "dotnet new" on it's own and pressing return will list the project types you can use. You can also Nuget install new project types, to get things like pre-made templates for Angular, Aurelia, Webpack and much more.
Once you have a new project, you can then just open that folder in code and start to work on it.
Shawty
|
|
|
|
|
VS Code is a standalone editor; it doesn't install .NET, it is not based on .NET. It's actually based on Electron[^], and was originally written as a competitor to Atom[^], which of course was written and released by the team at Github.
As you know, Microsoft acquired Github fairly recently - so now (more or less) they are supporting two different Electron-based cross-platform editors (Atom and VS Code). One or the other is likely to die or be merged into the other; my bet is on VS Code being the "winner".
VS Code as an editor - just like Atom - can be expanded upon using plug-ins and extensions. But right out of the box, it is geared toward code editing; it has "built-in" support for Git, for instance. But all of this can be extended and expanded to make the editor into virtually a full-fledged IDE. Most of the plug-ins, etc are similar to (or even the same) as the ones available for Atom - though there are a few out there that don't cross eco-systems. Even so, you can usually find one that'll work similar to the other, so if you have a favorite plug-in on Atom, switching to VS Code isn't too much of a headache.
So if both editors are so similar - why switch, or why use one over the other? Well - that's only a decision you can make for yourself, but there is one area where (I have found) VS Code shines over Atom: Time to startup. VS Code is simply the fastest. I am not sure why.
Basically, if I am editing a text file, I want it up as quickly as possible after clicking on the file to open it. With Atom, I was looking at several seconds; I never timed it, but it felt like an eternity. Once loaded, though, I never experienced any other issues, and opening further files was fast. It was just that initial startup.
With VS Code, though - you click on your file, and it is up almost instantly; maybe a 1-2 second lag at most.
But that's a really niche use-case; if you have the editor start up when you log in to your system, right off the bat, then it kinda negates the issue. I'm not always editing a file though, and so I don't have anything auto-start (at least at home - at work it's a different story).
As far as .NET development - if you need or want a cross-platform dev environment geared to that, then grab a copy of MonoDevelop[^].
Note that you won't be able to develop Windows apps on Linux (the API isn't there); what you can do is create GTK apps that are cross-platform for Windows, Mac, and Linux. You can also (in theory) take a Visual Studio developed .NET app, and convert it to use GTK for the windowing interface, and more or less "port" it to the other two platforms (the reverse is likely true as well).
As an aside, the rest of the .NET open-source ecosystem can be found here:
.NET Foundation[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Also, VSCode (for whatever reason) doesn't support text highlighting or intellisense for C# or C++ out of the box. You have to go get plugins for that. I'm using Microsoft's plugins and they work really well.
On the plus side, there are plugins for just about any language in common use. I have SQL, Swift, C#, C++, etc. installed. Also found a very good diff plugin.
You might want to take a look at this: Using .NET Core in Visual Studio Code[^] as a good starting point for both.
With the dotnet new <project_type> command, I always use the --output <folder> option because it creates the folder and then creates the new project in that folder. The documentation is here[^]
I've enjoyed using VSCode and .Net Core together on a Mac. It's getting better with each release (so far).
alan
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, why so much VS Code hate (looking at many of the previous reply trees)?
First, yes, it's an IDE. It supports project management, editing, syntax sense, debugging and source control. Is there something else an IDE is supposed to do?
Second, it's lightweight. You add plugins for what you want to do. It doesn't download everything when you install it: you add the bits you want. It *does* suggest bits you might like.
The command window is pretty simple and comes with lots of help.
To get started, you *don't* have to start a project in Windows. That poster was making a helpful suggestion to accelerate familiarity. To get started, download it, create a folder, open the folder with VS Code, and start adding files. It's pretty simple.
I have to laugh at the people recommending Eclipse instead. Sorry, folks. Eclipse works, but it's a classic poorly managed open source project. It's a ball of sticky stuff with bits slapped on all over the place. I use it every week, have done for 10 years (most embedded systems use it as a base, because it's free), and shudder every time I open it. I think the team motto is "we're programmers, we don't need no stinkin' usability!".
|
|
|
|
|
I am building a app (and a online site to go with) and need inputs from you guys regarding using authentication provided by google/FB/MS vs classic way of login (register users and maintain username/password). It's a side project and i am trying to reduce the development time in every possible way without compromising the quality of the app/website. would you guys will be willing to use a website where only way to authenticate is using either Google/FB/MS account ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One is that I don't have any of those accounts, and the main reason is that if an app forces me to log in using social media I suspect they really just want my personal data, my contact lists etc, that they're going to want to constantly bug me to share, to harasses my contacts etc etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. That is true. But I have created a dummy account just for authentication purpose. Not sure if others are also doing that. the only reason i am thing about that because it will save me some time and headache that comes with maintaining password.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a spare account for places like those. I do face problems when I am using a computer where I have my main account logged in.
If I did not had spare account, I will not login because I wont read terms and conditions and I wont trust the site. Basically, when I browse a new site, the mode is guilty until proven innocent.
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with rolling your own password database is that you have to do it right - encryption, security, etc. Note that in many jurisdictions, any database that contains personally-identifiable information requires extra precautions. Ignoring them can cost you big bucks/euros/...
Using FB/Google/etc. gets around some of this requirement, at the cost of adding to the already vast amount of information that they know about your clients (e.g. they know that your clients visit your website).
For mainstream sites, IMO most members of the public would be quite happy with authentication via FB/Google/etc. If, OTOH, you are building a site to host discussions about <your favorite conspiracy theory>, you may wish to reconsider. 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: The problem with rolling your own password database is that you have to do it right - encryption, security, etc. Note that in many jurisdictions, any database that contains personally-identifiable information requires extra precautions. Ignoring them can cost you big bucks/euros/...
Yep. And that is why i want to avoid it. it's a lot of work and not that many befits. Usually if i see a option to use Google/FB/MS i take that. But again i have a dummy account just for that. I am not sure if most guys do take that option or not.
|
|
|
|
|
CS2011 wrote: Usually if i see a option to use Google/FB/MS i take that. But again i have a dummy account just for that. I am not sure if most guys do take that option or not.
That is up to them. Creating an additional account is not exactly rocket science...
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Without a rock-solid reason do not get into building your own user management system...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
|
|
|
|
|
The other option I've not seen mentioned here is running your own LDAP rather than rolling a database. Every cloud service I've looked at offers the option of spinning up an AD server. It requires a little bit of compliance and maintenance, but it scales well and addresses a number of security concerns out of the box.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|
|
CS2011 wrote: would you guys will be willing to use a website where only way to authenticate is using either Google/FB/MS account ?
It can be quite convenient. As others have said, I'm not keen though on having some one-off site gather a bunch of personal information.
CS2011 wrote: and i am trying to reduce the development time in every possible way
There's quite a few open source examples of using Google/FB/etc for authentication, in a variety of languages.
Rolling your own authentication can be a PITA. Besides the obvious (encrypting the password) it requires:
Are you sending an email with a link to confirm registration?
How does the user change their password?
How does the user recover a lost password (more emails usually)
What about 2-factor authentication (typically a text message)
Which means setting up an email server (along with the associated risk of more open ports and the overhead of setting up yet another secure server), one-time tokens expirable tokens for registration, password change and password recovery, possibly connecting to an SMS provider for 2-factor authentication, and probably CSRF/XSRF/XSS protection.
[edit]Oh, and cookies or some other mechanism to implement "Remember Me"[/edit]
Latest Article - A Concise Overview of Threads
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
No for the same reason as many above I would not use cross website authentication. I do not think you have to write your own either. Plenty of options:
Google: cloud user authentication
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
the app/website i am building will be free to use. As per now i am not aware of any service which is providing that free of cost. So my options are limited to use some already written module for user management and maintain the server/security etc or avoid it altogether by using Google/FB/MS etc. In case if you know of any service which provide that service for fee up to say 1000 users definitely i will be willing to give it a try.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd prefer to not use Google/FB/MS for logging into anything but as a developer I recognize the convenience of utilizing it for speed, ease, and so on.
Why do I prefer not to? A multitude of reasons. First... single password, multiple sites. With individual logins I can create a unique password for it. If your site gets compromised, only that site is compromised. Second, the big guys aren't perfect either. Google just admitted it knew about a security bug which gave developers access to private profile data and chose not to disclose it. Facebook just had a bug that allowed your account to be impersonated on linked services. Twitter had that bug where all logins and passwords were being written in plain text to the internal error logs. MS has had their own security problems in the past.
I tend to avoid sites and services that force me through one of those routes if there is a viable alternative. I also recognize that those views put me in the minority.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, absolutely not. But I'd be happy to create an account at the website (or better yet, use the website as a guest without having to sign in).
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
I have a "totally legit" google ID that I use for logging onto websites that allow to be authenticated via one.
|
|
|
|
|
Company switched over to gmail some weeks ago, and I was used to having spam fully disabled. Gmail is a bit fiddly with it but you can make a filter which I assumed meant any spam would go to the inbox.
So when I noticed the spam count of 1 this morning. Click the tab and see a Microsoft Insider Program newsletter.
My first reaction is, "Oh okay, it's a newsletter that a bunch of others might have clicked spam to, and gmail with its black box just following what the masses it told it."
but "I stopped getting spam things. Odd, the filter is working. I have really bad spam in my inbox."
NO "is google hiding any potential Microsoft tools which could make me switch back to office?"
Let me actually read the stub alert for its reason.
"Ahhh, redirected from my old account and gmail unable to verify sender."
That is all good. No worries.
...
Test sending to the old email account to see if my filter works on those as well.
Email arrived into Inbox.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
