Microsoft subtracts C/C++ extension from VS Code forks

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Migration Away from VS Code

  • Many commenters say this reinforces their move to other tools: Zed, Emacs (often Doom/Spacemacs), Neovim, Sublime Text, CLion, QtCreator, JetBrains IDEs, or pure terminal setups (tmux+vim, etc.).
  • Emacs and Neovim are praised for longevity, configurability, and LSP/DAP support; people note the steep initial learning curve but long-term payoff.
  • Zed gets strong praise for speed, native UI, tree-sitter + LSP integration, and good language support (including C++ via clangd), but there are worries about pricing, missing debugging, markdown features, and some UI/UX choices.
  • Some prefer fully integrated IDEs (Visual Studio, CLion, PHPStorm) for “just works” C++/PHP workflows versus wrestling with VS Code configuration.

Trust, “Rug Pulls,” and Microsoft’s Strategy

  • Many see this as confirmation that relying on Microsoft inevitably leads to lock-in and future restrictions (“rug pull” narrative).
  • Recurrent theme: VS Code is marketed as open source while critical value (extensions, marketplace, proprietary binaries) sits behind restrictive licenses and EULAs.
  • Several frame this as another instance of “embrace, extend, extinguish”: open-source core, closed extensions/marketplace, then tightening control once dominant.
  • Others argue Microsoft has every right to protect its investment and prevent competitors from freely leveraging proprietary components.

Cursor, ToS Violations, and Marketplace Access

  • Cursor allegedly proxied the Visual Studio Marketplace to bypass license checks and ship Microsoft’s extensions in a paid VS Code fork; many see this as an obvious ToS violation.
  • Split views:
    • One side: companies should not blatantly flout licenses; this outcome was inevitable and deserved.
    • Other side: users should be free to run what they want; blocking compatible forks is anti-competitive and harms interoperability.
  • Some note practical risks to Cursor: Microsoft can cut them off at a critical moment, pushing users back to Copilot, though others think Cursor already gained enough traction to survive by replacing MS components.
  • Additional gripes about Cursor “hijacking” the code CLI alias reinforce distrust of it as well.

C/C++ Tooling and Alternatives

  • The Microsoft C/C++ extension’s vsix ships proprietary binaries under a restrictive license; recent changes enforce checks to block non-Visual-Studio-Code hosts.
  • Several recommend switching to clangd-based extensions, which are open source and often judged faster and more accurate, especially on large codebases, combined with CodeLLDB/LLDB/rr for debugging.
  • Some report edge cases where MS’s C++ extension works better with exotic toolchains, and note that other extensions depend on it, complicating life for VSCodium and similar forks.
  • Concern is also raised about other key Microsoft extensions (e.g., Jupyter, Python, C#) potentially following the same pattern.

Licensing, Ethics, and Community Responses

  • Strong debate over:
    • “Don’t build castles in other people’s kingdoms” vs. “it’s impossible not to depend on others’ platforms.”
    • Legal rights (ToS, copyright, bandwidth costs) vs. ethical expectations of openness and interoperability.
    • GPL/AGPL/BSL vs BSD/MIT models and whether permissive licenses enable “being ripped off” or simply fulfill their design.
  • Some express exhaustion from continually “sounding the alarm” about corporate control; others shrug, viewing editors as easy to replace and urging investment in genuinely community-governed tools.