An Open-Image to the .NET Community
UPDATE: ReSharper 6 Bundles Decompiler, Free Standalone Tool to Follow
Ah, some soothing oil on stormy waters perhaps?!!!
Less than $35?
Oh sweet zombie jesus, make this happen.
Even if it’s more than $35. I’d rather pay JetBrains $70 for a Reflector replacement than hand over any money to DeadGate for another piece of ransomware!
And then… the code inspection
yes please. Rolled in as part of R# vNext?
+1000 – Please!
You got lucky with the news out of Red-Gate today? Looks like very opportune timing! Look forward to seeing more on this.
Put those redgate guys in there self dug hole. Would love to see this in resharper. Great news!
+1 for this
Please make it available even to those of us who don’t use Resharper. I don’t care for Resharper, but I’ll happily pay you money for a tool similar to Reflector rather than pay it to Red Gate, who don’t keep their word.
[Staring speechless at the screen with mouth gaping open and drool dripping out]
I’m paying for this if it helps kill the Red Gate.
Sorry for being this passionate.
Neat stuff, looking forward to see a .NET Reflector product from JetBrains.
Red-gate will never get another penny from me and I will never recommend them again.
A sleazy company which deserve all the bad fortune that can come their way after the stunt they just pulled.
I guess this would mean something to me if I was a .NET coder. Can anyone explain the significance?
As I understand it most of the .net CLR source code is now provided by Microsoft, I hope the variable names etc. are better then what a un-compiler can produce. So why not use the provided source code for CLR types.
I still want a un-compiler to cope with 3rd party controls that don’t ship with source code as standard.
+1 for screwing RedGate. I’d rather have that functionality integrated into Resharper anyway, so long as it doesn’t cause additional bloat (which it invariably will)
I would like to reiterate Bill Simser’s call for “sweet raptor-zombie jesus, please make this happen.”
I’ve licensed JetBrains’ products (primarily dotTrace), have always been impressed, and would gladly pay a reasonable fee for a Reflector replacement just to spite Red-Gate and what one poster appropriately referred to as “ransomware”.
My favorite rationale for Red-Gate’s decision is “it’s too expensive for us to maintain”. Then don’t maintain it ya dumbasses! Either open source it or, better yet, don’t “improve it” every six months for cryin’ out loud! The thing is solid enough without any new “features”. Man, you can get away with one decent part-time coder and one decent part-time tester rather than pissing off the entire .NET community (at least those who count and would thus be familiar with reflection, the value/occasional necessity of disassembly, etc.).
Wow there is some serious venom towards redgate.
How much do some of you bill per hour? I am willing to bet it is more than $35
Still, competition is a good thing and JetBrains is quite competitive.
Thank you Hadi, I will indeed stay tuned.
@Pete: Yes, we probably all bill more than $35 per hour, but I doubt any of us have ever delivered a “free” tool, waited a couple of years, and then started demanding money for it.
To be clear, I’m *not* objecting to RedGate charging for v7. I’m not *happy* that they’re doing it, but I can understand why.
My objection is that v6 is going to expire and self-destruct at the end of May, and RedGate don’t appear to give a flying feck about it. Somehow they think they have the right to uninstall free software from your computer and force you to pay for the next version, even if you’re perfectly happy with the current version.
To my mind, that can only be described as extortion.
I actually happen to own both JetBrains and Red-Gate products. I paid good money for both and I expect both to perform as advertised.
Unfortunately, I got more use out of my performance profiling than I did .NET Reflector and I had to disable my ReSharper because it kept conflicting with other add-ins with Visual Studio and slowed the IDE down to a crawl.
What were the “other add-ins”?
Please contact us at (myself hadi at jetbrains or support at jetbrains) to try and solve your issues with ReSharper.
Aside from testing the DevExpress Refactor! Pro, which left behind its DevExpress Engine, there were several free add-ins for Visual Studio 2010 that were available from within Visual Studio 2010. Admittedly, I had installed several that appeared appealing and various features disappeared such as the ‘enhanced intellisense’.
However, this is not surprising since there seems to be no structured collaboration between developers creating Visual Studio add-ins. However, I found ReSharper to be one of the better packages during my evaluation and saved up to purchase a personal license. I don’t regret the purchase, I just regret that I had found my IDE unusable at random times (intellisense didn’t work or code editor would ‘hang’ while typing) and by disabling ReSharper, it seemed to go back to normal.
In fact, I had disabled the ‘global’ checking (the small round disc in the bottom corner of the IDE) because enabling that feature just made the product slow out of the gate. I didn’t find it a necessity, so I disabled it, but still ran into the aforementioned issues.
When it worked, it worked very well and I still think it is one of the best refactoring (and helpful code insight) tools out there, I just wish I could still continue using it without running into issues with the IDE. Needless to say, VS2010′s refactoring is pretty much sufficient for what I need nowadays.
You think I’ll pay $$$$$ for Resharper to avoid paying $$ for Reflector?
Dream on, JetBrain$$$$$
Sweet jeezus! this is wonderful. Reflector didn’t/wont get iterator blocks until v7! well done.
Good god. Are you all paid by Jetbrains or something. I will also pay a few $s for the upgrade instead of loads of $$$$$$$$$$$$$ for the Jetbrains version.
Been using the excellent Reflector for years so don’t feel it’s unfair to finally pay a few $$$ to them. They deserve it.
@Alex: I think you miss the point. This isn’t about paying money for a tool. It’s about Red Gate forcing us to pay money for a tool that was always free and originally implying that it would remain free, and then all-of-a-sudden charging money for it because they, not the community, made a bad investment by spending the money to add features to the tool that were not asked-for, and don’t want to eat the costs of their bad investment.
Also, don’t forget that Lutz Roeder was the one who initially created and maintained Reflector for somewhere close to 6 years before Red Gate got involved – if anything, I credit him far more than Red Gate – the only regret that he sold it to a company that has decided to force users to eat the costs of their poor judgment.
@Alex: I could just as easily ask if you’re paid by RedGate.
@Alex + Jetbrain$$$$: As Jason said, it’s not about paying for the tool. It’s not even about having to pay for v7 when previous versions have always been free. It’s the fact that v6 is going to expire and delete itself, and RedGate think it’s acceptable to force users to pay for the upgrade even if they don’t want it.
Yes, we’ve all heard the argument that Lutz added the expiry date to avoid supporting out-of-date installations; it’s the only response we’ve had from RedGate. As many of us have pointed out, that was fine when the update was free, but when the update costs money, it’s nothing short of extortion.
How would you feel if Microsoft announced that the next version of SQL Express would cost $10 per installation, and that all existing installations would expire and delete themselves unless you paid for the upgrade? Would you then claim that everyone who complained about the decision must be paid by Oracle?
OK, so the JetBrains version is likely to cost more than $35. So what? JetBrains have never ripped me off. JetBrains have never told me that I’m not allowed to continue using an old version of one of their tools because they want me to pay for the new version.
Okay JetBrains… listen. If you got a tool that does everything that Reflector does, and you want to charge me $50 for it, I will buy.
Just as long as its not ransomware and just as long as you don’t tell me its going to be free then charge me later on.
The only thing is :s I dont wanna to load whole VS 2010 just to reflect some assembly.
This would have to have some kind of external window also.
The title, I love it.
@Jetbrain$$$$$, Alex B
I hope you feel a bit better now
To those who thing RedGate deserves $$ for Reflector, go do your history lesson homework. RedGate didn’t produce Reflector, they acquired it from the guy who made it and distributed it for free (that is, for donations), and then they told the world that it would continue to be free while the future version with new features would be a paid version.
In other words, 1) they lied about it continuing to be free, and 2) they didn’t make it, how can they be “deserving” pay?
The equivalent software to the original Reflector in open source form is called ILSpy. May such software always be free!
Side note: I am a licensed user of Resharper and I would love to see IL decompilation support in Resharper, and would also love to spite RedGate.
RedGate .NET Reflector v188.8.131.52 + C# Source 4,523 downloads… lol, basically if you don’t want to pay redgate.. then just do what everyone else does… download it from you local free market and it even comes with sourcecode if you want to make it better. And stop complaining, just stop paying. thats all I can say.
On the other hand, Lutz got paid out good sums of money for his hard work to date when RedGate bought it from him… Paying redgate is just a reflection of that *pun intended* So money makes the world go round.. get over it.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>