Talk:Visual Studio Code

According to LICENSE^[1]. It is a "TIME-SENSITIVE SOFTWARE". "The software will stop running on 31/12/2016 (day/month/year). You will not receive any other notice. You may not be able to access data used with the software when it stops running." So the correct definition of this software is SHAREWARE and not FREEWARE.

From Wikipedia: "Shareware is a type of proprietary software which is provided (initially) free of charge to users, who are allowed and encouraged to make and share copies of the program, which helps to distribute it. There are many types of shareware, and while they may not require an initial up-front payment, all are intended to generate revenue in one way or another. Some limit use to personal non-commercial purposes only, with purchase of a license required for use in a business enterprise. The software itself may be limited in functionality or be TIME-LIMITED. " (Emphasis my own)

--Superdouble (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Superdouble

With all due respect, you are dead wrong here. There are three problems: First, shareware has many criteria besides time limitation, none of which are present here. In addition, the time limitation in shareware is completely different. Finally, many other forms of software license have time limitations, including freeware.

In this case, the time limitation is in the form of preset time, while in shareware, it is in the form of a preset length of a period. In other words, those who download a shareware have a set period from the date of their acquisition of license to test the program, in most cases 30 days. But in this case, the program expires at 12:00 AM 31 December 2016, even if the user download it on 11:59 PM 30 December 2016.

Overall, the license agreement reads like a freeware in preview stage. All Microsoft preview software, freeware or paid, expire on a set date.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S. You might be interested to know that 31 December 2016 only applies to version 0.92. Older versions had earlier expiry dates. See http://web.archive.org/web/20150505073845/https://code.visualstudio.com/License. —Codename Lisa (talk)

Lisa, what is the point of keeping this discussion? The license HAS CHANGED. Are you sure this adds something to the topic? --Superdouble (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware.

And this discussion was done and over for 15 days. Is there anything else I can help you with?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the current license terms, and in particular item 5, make it neither Open Source nor Free Software. This is quite different from the license in the GitHub repository. We should probably reflect this ambiguity in the article. --152.62.109.203 (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Believe me, this isn't the first time Microsoft has been careless with its license agreements. (Want another example? Microsoft Safety Scanner's license agreement reads: "You may install and use one copy of the software on your device to design, develop and test your programs." Go figure!) As long as the majority of sources, including Microsoft conferences, say that it is intended to be the free and open-source, we should take that and go with it. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Would you object to adding a footnote about this? When I first saw the license on the main website, I thought the Wikipedia article was out of date or something. 152.62.109.203 (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't. Maybe we should include the Github license as the main licensing source. Perhaps you'll have to wriggle a little until you reach a compromise that satisfies everyone but I for one, have no objection. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Clearly the official build is proprietary, while it is also available separately as free software for self-assembly from GitHub. Nobody knows if the official build is 100% from the same free source, and the official packaged download is definitely not provided under free software terms. I changed the text and info box to reflect those details accurately. 132.230.194.39 (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

In general it would be nice if the main article could make this more clear. Right now I am confused... the main article states that it is BOTH open source AND proprietary. So what is it now? 2A02:8388:1602:A780:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The main article states no such thing. —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Currently, the infobox lists the license of the "Source Code" as MIT and the license of the "Binaries built by Microsoft" as Proprietary software. This is conceptually incorrect, as a software license in general, and the MIT license in particular, refers to a program as a whole.

From the text of the MIT License: "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software [...] the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software [...]". Users of VSCode clearly do not have these rights.

The situation is that the Microsoft product "Visual Studio Code" is based on an MIT licensed program called "Visual Studio Code - Open Source ("Code - OSS")", which is available through github^[1]. It is a situation similar to Chrome, a proprietary program, based on Chromium, a BSD licensed product. This situation was clarified, including the analogy with Chrome and Chromium, by a Microsoft employee.^[2]

In Wikipedia, the infobox of Chrome lists it as "Proprietary freeware, based on open source components". I am changing the infobox of this page to something similar.

Forgot to sign: 123popos123 (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a diff that is still in the final revision of the article that contains limited factual content and only has user experience gripes from the perspective of one person. It also contains weasal words ("sporadic" feature set? "limited" scope?) Making such statements requires a solid baseline to compare, but the table provided as a source simply states facts about its feature set as well it should.

The diff in question can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Visual_Studio_Code&diff=700919912&oldid=697742710

I think that User:Codename Lisa has done well with some of her other contributions, but for this article's benefit, I feel this particular one should be reverted. --Jjgoop (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jjgoop

"Sporadic" and "limited" are well with the limits of our weasel words guideline because there is a whole table there explaining their extent. To quote:

The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution. Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You are confusing "limited scope" with "specific scope".

BTW look at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sporadic please. The feature set can't be described as "sporadic" when you look at http://code.visualstudio.com/Docs/languages/overview (unless u don't understand what the plus signs in the table mean). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.28.3 (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Do you know what I see when I look at that table? I see inconsistency. VS Code is built like a makeshift hen-house. A little feature is added here and there without a goal or coordinated effort to support a certain language. VS Code is an app that has no purpose, just some random good ideas. But I said none of that. Wikipedia is no place for personal opinion. Thus I only reported the inconsistency in feature sets. If you have a better word in mind that explains the inconsistency better, please let us know.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The plus signs in the Microsoft's table have no meaning whatsoever: The table is cumulative anyway and is not understood in any other way. The condemning fact is that the same set of features listed for one language is not supported for another. For example, there is no snippet support for Python.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I vote for reproducing the "+" signs as they are in the original table at http://code.visualstudio.com/docs/languages/overview#_what-languages-are-supported 188.26.112.186 (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

My dear friend, the law doesn't work with voting: Using plus sign brings in copyright violation concerns unnecessarily. (See WP:COPYPASTE.) The plus signs add no new meaning (see WP:REDEX), so removing them is a bit of original work on our part.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi.

I reverted five consecutive edits by 179.183.135.34 which contributed a sentence that was not a representation fact proportionately and as far as possible without bias, but a biased statement of the editor's own fears.

Now, I was thinking, am I right that it is an instance of editorializing?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be just random hate of some GPL fanatic for the MIT/BSD licensing not being "free software enough" for their personal preference. You could write such a remark under any MIT/BSD licensed software, and I think MIT/BSD are pretty much unanimously accepted as "free software" licenses at this point - therefore, such specific criticisms of those licenses are completely out of the scope of this article and should be sourced in the respective articles about those specific licenses, not this one instance of software. 2003:72:8F3D:3900:62E3:27FF:FE14:BDE8 (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi.

There has a been contribution by User:Acyclic alleging that Visual Studio Code does not use CPU resources effectively. I have reverted it twice so far: Once because it was using the notoriously unreliable source The Register, which has a history of writing sensational stuff. The second time, Acyclic added another source, but I reverted because the contribution failed verification against the new source. Basically, only a URL had been changed; it was still saying the same sensational stuff.

But I am here to report a development since my last revert: I tried to write what this new source actually says, i.e. the issue occurring on macOS Sierra only. But I realized that the new source is actually self-published. In other words, there is no telling whether this issue happens to one person or a group large enough to give the Wikipedia coverage due weight. (Just for the record, the issue cannot be reproduced on my Windows computer.)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not cool to remove sourced content. You are welcome to edit it to better suit the source. Basically, there are comments on the page verifying its accuracy. It is not some false b/s that someone made up, although it seems you might like if that were true. Of course it cannot be reproduced on your Windows system. Microsoft is known all too well to intentionally cripple software on non-Windows operating systems. --Acyclic (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"It is not cool to remove sourced content." Our policy says otherwise. Sources must be reliable and must attest to what is written. Neither is the case here.

"[...] there are comments on the page verifying its accuracy. It is not some false b/s..." But you are not saying what those comments are saying. So, yes, what you wrote is false b/s.

"[...] although it seems you might like if that were true. I don't cut my nose to spite my face.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Some wants to know what's inside Microsoft's telemetry, and didn't have the expertise to read the source code. (Maybe did, but didn't see the source because of this.)

I checked the source code and I see a lot of telemetry points, like thousands. Is it encyclopedic to include them all? i.e. WP:IINFO?

Basic stuff that they collect are version number, OS, platform, first session date and time, last session date and time, startup time, things like that. 5.78.237.10 (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, they are tracking every single click and key press. 2003:C4:EF30:1C00:54C2:B838:5C47:75A8 (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

They do not. YannickFran (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

There is an Opensource clone of Visual Studio Code - VSCodium (without the proprietary telemetry/tracking), as of 2020-08-20 Microsoft Defender SmartScreen report VSCodium as Unsafe and prevented it from download and install from VSCodium website.^[3]

This is not suitable for the article lead. Perhaps with improvements it would fit into the article elsewhere. — MaxEnt 18:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not notable to any extend. We're not going around listing recompilations of every app because they may or may not include telemetry. --84.194.198.206 (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I think VSCodium deserves to be a separate chapter on the Visual Studio Code page, probably under Data collection. --Alexey Vazhnov (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It is very notable, you can see that by googling. It is even more notable than ungoogled-chromium (measuring by search results), a Chromium fork with similar motives that is referenced in the Chromium page. VSCodium has 17.6k stars on GitHub right now. VSCode is the most popular IDE, and VSCodium is the most popular FOSS distribution of it, and it is quite popular. If the article does not mention it, it is incomplete. Your tone ("...not notable to any extend.", "...may or may not include...") shows that you are biased. 123popos123 (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, 'notable' does not mean google hits or social media likes. See WP:N. We'd need reliable sources to use to source the information. MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

VSCodium is not a fork, from VSCodium's own website:

When we build Visual Studio Code, we do exactly this. We clone the vscode repository, we lay down a customized product.json that has Microsoft specific functionality (telemetry, gallery, logo, etc.), and then produce a build that we release under our license.

As VSCodium is barely notable to begin with, I'm removing the "Forks" section since it's factually incorrect and off topic. If VSCodium has any place in this article it's as a passing mention in a larger discussion about telemetry and possible controversy surrounding that.

-- Nickelpro (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I have once again cleaned up this article's overabundance of references to Codium. As a simple compile this really isn't noteworthy at all, even if it was an actual proper fork of the project, especially not to the point where it is being inserted everywhere in the article. There are even a number of sentences that seemed to just randomly bring up that Code's binaries aren't "open" just to be able to turn it all back to Codium. Or even inserting it into the info card... Come on... It reads like an ad for a project this article isn't about. -- YannickFran (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I created a separate article for VSCodium, and because this article had zero mentions of VSCodium, I figured it makes sense to link to it at least once from here, so for now I added it to See also. —vrtxd (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The link has been removed again as the article has been reverted to its redirect. I'm sorry to say, but that simply doesn't cut it. Completely ignoring the lack of reliable sources, an article that takes the statistic of 50 million VS Code users and then claims that that must mean there is 2 million Codium users because the StackOverflow Developer Survey says there where 5% of people who claim to use Codium, is just some of the more egregious WP:OR that I've seen. That and the fact that 6 sources either weren't about Codium specifically at best or don't even mention it at all at worst, leaving only 3 sources that were about Codium - all of which were primary sources - means it simply cannot support notability. YannickFran (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I want to learn the latest market share percentages in 2020 September. I think it will be make more clear to understand what is going on that ecosystem and who uses VS Code and why uses VS Code. -- MertGor (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I love when an encyclopedia avoids any possible confusion. In this case in the first section we have that boring possible confusion between freeware and free software. I would like to change the first section accordingly to the subject. It's not that big change, but I would like to discuss it first. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Both forms are grammatically wrong. "Software" is uncountable. The second form (proposed) is bloated too; "freeware" is already software.

The article is already doing a much better job:

Visual Studio Code's source code comes from Microsoft's free and open-source software VSCode project released under the permissive Expat License,^[8] and the compiled binaries are freeware for any use.^[9]

One of the properties of free software is that anyone is free to do anything with them, even creating non-free derivatives. In this case, Microsoft has used that freedom to release non-free binaries to protect its brand and its users against malicious Chinese-style scumming.

Waysidesc (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Visual Studio Code is not an integrated development environment (IDE). It's a text editor. Should the first sentence of the page be edited then? Gotoro (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The 'built-in' distinction is a one pushed by pedants. It's an IDE that has a great plugin architecture which allows you to slim-down your experience as much as you want. But what if 90% of people use it with those said plugins with feature parity (or at least the ones they want) of all the traditional IDEs and Microsoft themselves call it an IDE on many of their pages. The pedants will push the 'built-in'='text-editor' point to an absurdity (btw the IDE wiki page makes no such distinction) even if almost everyone uses all the defining features of an IDE but had to install them. It's silly. 108.28.67.209 (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned by IP user, VS Code is an IDE, it being extensible has little to do with that whether or not something is an IDE, notably, a base Visual Studio installation also does very little and requires various secondary packages to be installed. This discussion has been had plenty of times over the years, we really don't need to do this again. But alas...

To address the recent edit summaries by RabbitRavenParty. First of all as mentioned before, the link to the Microsoft documentation specifically calls Visual Studio a "fuller IDE" compared to Visual Studio Code, which implies they see VS Code as an IDE itself too, which is further supported by the documentation elsewhere referring to Code as an IDE. However, this matters little because whether its developer calls something a certain way doesn't define how we call it here on Wikipedia. Google Chrome used to support FTP. Google never called it an FTP client. It still was one until that point. Furthermore going back to Microsoft: Microsoft has had a history of calling a product and a product line the same thing. Whenever they would talk about the various Windows 8 editions, they'd refer to the edition known as "Windows 8" as "Windows 8 Core". This was just to distinct "Windows 8" as a product family and "Windows 8" as the specific edition of the OS. The same happens in that Microsoft support article. Visual Studio is called "Visual Studio", not "Visual Studio IDE". Poor naming? Sure. Does that mean that that's the official name? No. Does it automatically exclude any other product being in the same category? No again, that's not how any of this works. Tl;dr: at no point does this support document dispute Code is a IDE.

Secondly, FreeCodeCamp and Git Tower are not reliable sources. Notably, neither sources actually even discuss whether Code is an IDE or delve into why they'd say that if they do. In other words; even if they were reliable, these sources don't actually support the claim in the first place. Yes sure, VS Code is a source code editor, but so is every other IDE. A square is also a rectangle.

More importantly; Wikipedia defines an IDE as a "source-code editor, build automation tools and a debugger". VS Code has all these tools and many more, including version control, terminal, language support, refactoring tools, class and object browsers, etc. None of which are typical for "just a source-code editor". Monaco is just a source code editor, but that's just 1 small part of VS Code. VS Code however does match the definition of an IDE. If that's still not enough, forks like Cursor also call themselves IDEs, and the only difference between these 2 is the LLM they use. Then there is also the incident mentioned on this very article of the Chinese fork which called itself an IDE as well. Also notable; the last source in the opening, the Stack Overflow Developer Survey, specifically calls VS Code an IDE too.

If there is still some disagreement here, I would love for you to provide an actual definition of an IDE and why VS Code doesn't fit that definition or a reliable source that does that for you. Just linking to random pages that don't even concern themselves with discussing that subject isn't enough. YannickFran (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I would like to respectfully point out that, according to the official documentation, Visual Studio Code (VS Code) is indeed described as a "code editor." For reference, the official website states "Your Code Editor" in its introductory line (Source: VS Code Official Website https://code.visualstudio.com/), and this is further supported by the GitHub repository's description (Source: VS Code GitHub Repository https://github.com/microsoft/vscode?tab=readme-ov-file#the-repository).

While I understand differing opinions may exist, it’s important to rely on factual sources. VS Code functions as a text editor with a rich set of features, akin to Sublime Text or Atom. Through the installation of extensions, it can be extended to support a wide variety of development tasks.

I encourage a more nuanced understanding based on these references to avoid the spread of misinformation. RabbitRavenParty (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, you're not actually saying why you think that it isn't an IDE. Of course Visual Studio Code is a code editor. Visual Studio is too. It's kinda an important aspect of an IDE, in fact. Whether or not any additional functionality comes from extensions is not relevant to the definition of a code editor, nor relevant to VS Code specifically because it has plenty of tools that make it a IDE built-in. And again, if you really want to go by randomly linking to documentation that doesn't even seek to answer the question being posed, do note that the readme of the repository describes VS Code as combining "the simplicity of a code editor with what developers need for their core edit-build-debug cycle" which co-incidentally is the definition of an IDE according to Wikipedia ("IDE normally consists of at least a source-code editor, build automation tools, and a debugger"). Microsoft also markets Outlook as email and calendar client, are you going to argue that that means that it isn't a personal information manager too? It also markets Calculator as a calculator. Are we to remove the graphing and conversion features from the Wikipedia page because that isn't in their tag line for the product? No. Because that isn't how that works.

You're not going off on "factual sources", you're just cherry picking what you want to hear and ignore everything else, even these same sources when they contradict your stance as a pointed out earlier. It's why you can't actually dispute any of the points raised. You're not explaining why VS Code wouldn't fall under the definition of an IDE. You're not explaining why Microsoft in fact refers to VS Code as an IDE in its documentation. You're not explaining why many of its forks claim to be IDEs despite minimal divergence in features (are they lying?). It's why you cannot explain away why sources like Stack Overflow do call it an IDE. It's why instead of actually making a discussion, you're just repeating the same thing again, throwing a new links in the mix with the exact same flaws in logic as every other link until this point. So please, self revert and discuss it here first, by providing an actual reason for why VS Code would not be an IDE, because just calling it a "text editor with a rich set of features" is not an argument because there is just nothing to argue with there. You're at best trying to make a distinction without a difference, and co-incidentally you can in fact describe every IDE as a "text editor with a rich set of features". YannickFran (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your perspective, and I agree that the line between a code editor and an IDE can be blurry, especially with the evolution of tools like VS Code. However, I’d like to clarify a few important distinctions to better understand why VS Code is typically considered a code editor rather than a full-fledged IDE.

When we refer to VS Code as a "code editor," we are focusing on its core functionality, which is primarily editing code. Out of the box, it offers basic features like syntax highlighting, autocompletion, and code navigation. These core tools are what make it a lightweight code editor. While it’s true that VS Code can support debugging, building, and other tasks, these capabilities are not built-in by default and are added through extensions based on the user's needs. This is a crucial distinction: VS Code provides a minimal base platform that can be extended, but its default setup doesn’t include the comprehensive set of tools that typically define an IDE.

An IDE, by definition, comes with a pre-integrated suite of tools that work together seamlessly to provide an end-to-end development experience. For example, tools like Visual Studio (not Code), IntelliJ IDEA, or Eclipse are considered full IDEs because they offer integrated features such as build systems, project structure management, debuggers, and testing tools out of the box. These are essential for managing large and complex projects. In contrast, VS Code is deliberately designed to be extensible, allowing users to customize their environment by adding the tools they need.

The fact that VS Code can act like an IDE when extensions are installed does not make it an IDE by definition. Its flexibility allows users to tailor the environment to their needs, but that is not the same as having a comprehensive, pre-configured environment that is inherent to traditional IDEs. This extensibility is what sets VS Code apart: while it can perform many IDE-like tasks, the user is in control of adding and configuring those tools, whereas an IDE comes with them pre-integrated.

I also want to emphasize that this isn’t about “cherry-picking” sources. The distinction is not only a matter of documentation, but of the product's design. Microsoft refers to VS Code as a "code editor," and even though many forks of VS Code may market themselves as IDEs, the original software maintains its identity as a code editor with the option to add IDE-like features. This is not to downplay the power of VS Code—it’s an incredibly flexible tool—but to maintain clarity and avoid confusion, calling it a "code editor with IDE-like features" seems the most accurate classification.

While VS Code has the potential to function as an IDE with the appropriate extensions, in its core form, it remains a lightweight code editor. It does not include the pre-integrated, full suite of development tools that traditional IDEs offer, making it more accurate to describe it as a "code editor with IDE-like features" rather than a complete IDE. RabbitRavenParty (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, if you're not actually going to make an argument substantiated by something other than your personal opinion and definitions that you can't back up with anything (and which appear to be self contradictory), I don't see much point in discussing this further. So lets get to it...

• While it’s true that VS Code can support debugging, building, and other tasks, these capabilities are not built-in by default, right at the start and this is the point where I feel like having this argument just won't get us anywhere. Because either you know this isn't true and are just lying, or you didn't know this isn't true in which case; why are you even making this argument and having this discussion in the first place? VS Code does ship with debugging tools, and as said before, it also has version control, terminal, language support, refactoring tools, class and object browsers, testing tools, among many other things by default. All features that push it far beyond being just a code editor, well into the territory of IDEs (but yet again, having a debugger or build tools isn't what defines an IDE, or are you arguing PHPStorm isn't an IDE because it doesn't have a build tool?). For VS Code, basic debugging tools are built-in with every clean installation and users cannot get around that until it has been installed.

• You know what doesn't ship with any debug features in its clean installation? Visual Studio. Is Visual Studio not an IDE because all of its IDE features come from the secondary packages you must manually opt in to install? No of course not, that would be silly, that isn't how we define what makes something an IDE. I'll just completely ignore the "and other tasks" as just yet another vague statement...

• "An IDE, by definition," you say. By what definition, who's definition? By Wikipedia's definition and Microsoft's own description from the page you linked, VS Code does in fact check the boxes to be considered an IDE (and them some). Unless you can actually define a definition substantiated by a reliable source, it's just your personal opinion.
• As for we are focusing on its core functionality, which is primarily editing code. Uhm... no. We're not? This article isn't titled "Core functionality of Visual Studio Code". We don't focus on "its core functionality," we're dealing with what the program is in its totality. The article is about VS Code, not "some functions of VS Code" (funnily enough, this also seems to indirectly admit that you're ignoring VS Code's capabilities just to fit it in a box). This is Wikipedia, not a marketing site. And as mentioned before by others and myself yet again: extensibility or the lack there off doesn't define what is and isn't an IDE.
• "comprehensive, pre-configured environment that is inherent to traditional IDEs" this is just marketing speak, not an actual definition, not an actionable thing to discuss. Even taking it at face value this would disqualify tools like Visual Studio from being an IDE, because a base Visual Studio install isn't a "comprehenssive, pre-configured environment" for anything. I've already gone over this, but VS does in fact not offer many of these tools by default unless you actively go out of your way to install them, ironically, Visual Studio Code does actually include some of these tools by default without user intervention.
• even though many forks of VS Code may market themselves as IDEs, the original software maintains its identity as a code editor, very interesting. So even though these forks share practically the exact same feature set (by being a rebrand or in case of Cursor mostly just a different AI implementation), you're either arguing that you deem Cursor to be an IDE because it has a different marketing tag, meaning you're ignoring the reality that they are for all intents and purposes functionally the same products. Or you're making the argument that Cursor isn't an IDE despite its developer claiming it is, when your entire argument is based on the idea that because Microsoft calls VS Code a "code editor" in its tag line it cannot be anything else. You can't have it both ways.

• I cannot stress enough yet again that Microsoft also refers to VS Code as an IDE in its documentation, something you seem to continue to ignore, and how the link you provided earlier describes VS Code matching to the definition Wikipedia uses to define what an IDE is. Anyways, while we're at it; GitHub's documentation is littered with phrases like "Pick your IDE like IntelliJ or Visual Studio Code". That's all Microsoft's wording too. GitLab's documentation also refers to VS Code as an IDE, and that's a third party source.

• calling it a "code editor with IDE-like features" seems the most accurate classification. You know what another name is for "a code editor with IDE-like features"? An IDE.

Tl:dr; I can't help but notice that you still haven't actually provided the definition on which you base the statement that Visual Studio Code is not an IDE, while most of your arguments are either untrue (e.g. the feature set of a clean VS Code install) or would disqualify programs that very clearly are IDEs from being IDEs (e.g. Visual Studio not shipping with a debugger in its "core form" which you argue disqualifies something from being an IDE). YannickFran (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi YannickFran,

I understand your perspective, but I feel that your arguments are primarily based on personal preference, as you haven’t provided specific sources to back up your claims. You’ve mentioned that Microsoft refers to VS Code as an IDE in their documentation, and I’d appreciate it if you could share your source for that. Please don't just emphasize the phrase "Microsoft calls it an IDE" without providing concrete references. It would be helpful to know where you’re getting this information from.

Based on what I’ve read on the official VS Code website, I consider it a code editor. I understand that many people choose to treat it as an IDE, and I get that you're advocating for it to be classified as such. However, I am simply going by what’s stated on their official website. If you can provide an official source (either from their website or a product-related page) where VS Code is referred to as an IDE, I’ll gladly accept that and acknowledge it. Until then, I am inclined to believe that your stance is based on personal preference rather than official documentation.

Everything I have written before was to explain why it's not an IDE, but now I’m pivoting this discussion to focus on why you think VS Code is an IDE (which I think you’ve already answered numerous times; if you’d like to explain again, I’m fine with that) and where you’ve seen it mentioned as an IDE.

If you're unable to provide the references, I kindly ask that we refer to it as a code editor, as that’s what the official website indicates. If I see VS Code mentioned as an IDE on their site, I’d be happy to change my perspective. It's not about personal preference-it's just based on what’s written on their website. I used to think of VS Code as an IDE, but when I downloaded it for my new machine, I read the official website and realized that it’s described as a code editor. RabbitRavenParty (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

This pings as AI-generated text. Please do not use AI to write talk page comments, nobody is here to talk with bots - especially since they get basic facts wrong, such as the fact that YannickFran has raised specific sources to support their points. MrOllie (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mr Ollie,

Thank you for your reply and pointing it out. I want to confirm that I have written this myself with adjustments using AI.

I started this with "It was great reading your reply." but I thought this sounds like AI written so I removed it. I wanted to be respectful and sound polite.

I did use AI but that is to make it sound polite.

For example:

Original Text:

"It was great reading your reply. Your arguments here are based on your personal preference as you have not provided any specific sources. You are keep saying that microsoft refers VS code as IDE in their documentation. I would love to know your source, please dont emphasize on "Microsoft calls it an IDE", without sharing your sources. It will be helpful to know where you got this information from."

Polite tone:

"It was great reading your reply. I understand your perspective, but I feel that your arguments are primarily based on personal preference, as you haven’t provided specific sources to back up your claims. You’ve mentioned that Microsoft refers to VS Code as an IDE in their documentation, and I’d appreciate it if you could share your source for that. Please don't just emphasize the phrase "Microsoft calls it an IDE" without providing concrete references. It would be helpful to know where you’re getting this information from."

I have written everything myself, AI was used to change the tone to polite and professional.

Please let me know if this is something to avoid. (This entire reply is written by me with no AI tone change) RabbitRavenParty (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is something to avoid. Wikipedia editors are generally extremely critical of any use of AI generated text. MrOllie (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay no, you don't get to just go "no you" after a) I've asked you multiple times for a source and b) I've already directed you to sources that support my position, both from primary (Microsoft), secondary (StackOverflow Developer Survey, GitHub, GitLab, Cursor) and tertiary (Wikipedia). You're entirely ignoring any of the points I've raised, and the only argument you've raised boils down to "the tag line calls it a code editor," which absolutely isn't a valid argument (nor does it, if taken at face value, exclude VS Code from being an IDE because, again, just because a square is a rectangle doesn't mean it also isn't a square). It's not my job to proof your claims right. I don't think there is an point in continuing this discussion. If you actually answer the questions and respond to the many contradictions and logical loopholes I've raised in my previous comments, then we can discuss this further, but at this point I see no reason to continue.

Finally, I'm going to make the assumption that you're new and not just a single purpose account, so let me direct you to Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources: WP:RS and more specifically WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:PSTS for how to deal with primary, secondary and tertiary sources and what is and isn't reliable. And also, yes, don't use AIs to write on Wikipedia. You comes across as being extremely pompous, it hadn't crossed my mind yet that this was just AI. I'm frankly not sure which is worse. YannickFran (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you again for your response, and thank you for providing the "Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources".

I can see that you still have not provided any links, just referring to what you read on some websites. I searched myself to find the references on the website you mentioned, and I did find references on each website, along with some references that refer VS code as an editor, on those same websites, (Github and Gitlab).

I looked for references on Stack Overflow Developer Survey, and found that under survey for IDE's They have listed VS Code as well. Along with that, I noticed that your source also listed Notepad++, Nano and VIM as an IDE (Under the same list), now, would you argue that they are in fact IDEs?

I was able to find conflicting references from your sources, but I think you will choose to ignore it. Anyways, I digress.

I understand that based on the references (even though I found conflicting arguments), I have to accept that VS code is an IDE, and I will accept it.

What does this gonna do, is it going to change how VS code works? is is going to impact how people use VS code? No. So whether we consider this as an IDE or code editor it will work the same. I will now call VS code an IDE, until someone says otherwise (or ask me to call it code editor.)

This makes me doubt the authenticity of articles on wikipedia,

For average user, talk section does not mean much, It would be better to have a community notes like feature on wikipedia that will be visible to user, to indicate that there might be some conflicting views or something. RabbitRavenParty (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

...this was yet again partially written by an AI, wasn't it?

You seem to misunderstand the problem. What you're arguing is the equivalent of arguing that the iPhone is a phone because it is in the name and that it therefor cannot be music player, messaging device, camera, calendar, web browser, etc. or in other words: a smartphone. Visual Studio Code is a code editor, nobody is disputing that, but that doesn't exclude it from being an IDE. Sources referring to Visual Studio Code's code editing features don't detract from that point, just as much as sources referring to the iPhone as "a great camera" doesn't mean it suddenly is a camera and not a phone. I can find many sources calling Visual Studio a code editor, doesn't make it not an IDE tho. Out of the 48 sources on this page, 12 explicitly refer to VS Code as an IDE (which pushes it well into WP:COMMONNAME, too), add the fact that many of these are reliable sources and not just blog posts, and that's how Wikipedia will describe it.

Wikipedia doesn't need "community notes", Wikipedia is the community note. A handful of people have tried to remove references to "IDE" from this page and these edits have always been quickly undone by various other editors. That's your community note right there. YannickFran (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, The fact that I wrote it myself with no AI whatsoever and you thought that I used AI, is a complement (I think). (there are signs that it is written by a human. After submitting it, I read it back and found, not 1 or 2 but multiples typos and casing errors.)

iPhone is a very bad example of what you are trying to say, and as for sources, and VS Code, I already agreed with you on that.

And Thanks for sharing the article "WP:COMMONNAME" for better clarity. RabbitRavenParty (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I chuckled out loud when I first read the description of a text editor as an "IDE", but I realize there's no point in trying to convince Wikipedia losers that they are wrong. 24.111.58.2 (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

As of writing, the article has thankfully been changed back to "source-code editor". At least this is accurate to how VS Code describes itself, and it's utterly baffling to me that there are still Wikipedia editors who completely (willingly?) ignore this. T6283 (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

And the edit war finally led to a rare instance of full protection. Cheers. Not sure if we need an RFC on this. NasssaNser 15:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Personally I think we should have an RFC. The edit war has been going on for a long time now, and it's clear from the history of this topic's discussion that the dispute gets very heated. T6283 (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2025 (UTC)