Talk:Visual Studio Code
The purpose of this article and any future conflation with Visual Studio
I recently attempted to clean up this article, and in the process I removed the stub notice because I don't think the article needs to be expanded. From what I could tell, this article and its template mainly got as far-reaching as they did because some editors were conflating it with Visual Studio, a separate program which is integral to programming with the engine's C++ source code. I do think having an article for Visual Studio Code on this wiki has some merit (mainly because of its useful Source-related extensions), although giving Visual Studio Code a distinct presence on other articles via its own icon template is a bit superfluous, and I've removed instances of it being confused with Visual Studio. However, while I was clearing up confusion in this article, I realized there's not a comprehensive place for me to direct people looking for Visual Studio proper. I think there remains a bit of an imbalance just because Visual Studio Code has an article + template while Visual Studio itself does not.
Compared to Visual Studio Code, which is merely a useful text editor, Visual Studio is effectively (but not technically) a required IDE for programming with Source on Windows. However, it never had its own article on the VDC, and while I could see some benefits to it having one now (e.g. having one place to clear up confusion between versions or other currently esoteric/obscure knowledge), I'm not particularly convinced it's necessary. Many articles and tutorials related to Visual Studio (see Category:Programming) already exist on this wiki, although they are not organized and some only apply to older SDK versions. Still, the very fact Visual Studio Code has its own article and highlighted template give it a more emphatic presence, and I feel like further confusion or disparity is inevitable as long as that's the case.
Given the fact this wiki is currently going through a massive transformation and there's a lot more scrutiny over redundant articles/templates, I'm curious if anyone else has an opinion on this. I could see further action being taken towards minimizing Visual Studio Code's presence, expanding Visual Studio's presence, or both. I'm personally beginning to favor a unique "Visual Studio" category with a Visual Studio redirect page, as I could see it providing the best of both worlds in explaining what Visual Studio is without letting it overstay its welcome, and it would provide a more organized index for the existing VDC tutorials compared to them being mixed in with general Source SDK content in Category:Programming. This is just my suggestion, however, and I'd like to see more input before going forward with anything. --Blixibon (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2024 (PDT)
Thanks Microsoft, very awesome choice of name.- It is without doubt problematic that entering "Visual Studio" into the search only gives this. I doubt that expanding its title would help very much, like "Visual Studio Code (editor)", or at least I can't think of a good way to rename it without disadvantages.
- When I was writing in my profile, my list of nitpicks about the current VDC design, I did notice that in the {{Sdktools}} navbox there's nothing on programming.
- While it doesn't solve any issues you noted above, if there's any place to use the VSCode template effectively, it would be there... if someone were to make a new category there, that is. For programming-related tools. (that wouldn't be me, because my tools begin and end with Notepad++ and extension-less Visual Studio 2015).
- The presence on pages via an icon template is superfluous in general, I've started using these templates predominantly with "1.bold" parameter, like {{hl2|1.bold}} so it's just bold text. At times it still feels appropriate to have icons, and personally I think VSCode template, with icon, isn't so confusing... the context of where it is used is what defines it.
- If I were to make an overall page titled "Visual Studio", and have it as the first result when typing that in, I'd make it a redirect to the category that would house VS-specific articles, specifically. Like Compiling under <edition>, those. And it would be itself included in Category:Programming.
- A lot of things about it are just not ideal, but I think if every time VSCode is mentioned, the context is either kept clear, or there's notices like on this article, I think it'll pass.
- Both can be expanded - VSCode and VStudio - but without lettig them mix. Do you use VStudio for writing VScript? I can imagine the VScript pages suggesting VSCode more.
- (and, sure, I'm one of the people with a tendency to scrutiny for over-documenting. But like I said, there's actually so little written on instruments for programmers, that this Visual Studio Code article, it's quite fine to have. Oh, and without this, I had no idea it existed.) Cvoxalury (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2024 (PDT)
- I was about to go forward with creating a Visual Studio category, but I took a deeper dive into the VDC's documentation of Visual Studio-related articles and realized it probably wouldn't be very useful to anyone working with it, as all Visual Studio-related articles refer to different SDKs. Categorizing them efficiently would require splitting them up into different versions.
- For now, I've decided to rewrite Compiler choices with a section dedicated to Visual Studio and a separate redirect leading to it. I also created a unique software template ({{vstudio}}) for parity with {{vscode}}, although I'm not sure if it's really necessary.
- While making these changes, I created a new template called {{Industry tool}} which marks tools that are not Valve-related and would hopefully discourage them from being made too generalized/off-topic, which I think is going to straddle a bit into the conversation about navboxes. For the time being, though, I think the topic of Visual Studio Code vs. Visual Studio can be laid to rest. —Blixibon (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2024 (PDT)
