"Open in .NET Reflector" feature is just useless

Explore, browse and analyze .NET assemblies

"Open in .NET Reflector" feature is just useless

Postby vcbnvbm » Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:37 pm

It can't find property/methods definition. It conflicts with Resharper and other software (the ridiculous "you do not need to use .NET Reflector" message). It doesn't work here, there.. it just doesn't work in the most cases.
Is there any hope for more sane implementation of this feature?
vcbnvbm
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:06 am

Postby Alex.Davies » Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:34 pm

One of the benefits of charging for reflector is that we will be able to afford to spend time on it. The "Open in .net reflector" feature isn't very good because we had to avoid parsing c# (and vb f# etc..) because that would take too long to implement. So we had to rely on piggy-backing on the existing "go to definition" feature.

So I can't promise anything, but if there's enough money to do the development work, it's something that I would like to improve.

Resharper changes the behaviour of this, breaking what we did, but if you set Resharper to use the object browser (as R# 4 always did) it works quite well.
Alex
Developer,
Red Gate .NET Tools
Alex.Davies
 
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:23 pm
Location: Cambridge, uk

Re:

Postby nexus99 » Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:27 pm

Alex.Davies wrote:if there's enough money to do the development work


LOL? I think redgate didnt learn its lesson yet. If all developers thought like you did, there would be no Linux, no apache, no open source.. Who is paying for linux? or other great gnu software? Nobody. But they still survive. Look at wikipedia, they are always free, but they get millions of dollars via donation.

So, IF you DO your job properly, people WILL always appreciate it and donate money, even if you dont want. Whining about money is just an excuse. Especially if you remember that you didnt create the source code, you got it "ready-to-use" from Roeder and put your logo on it. Punishing the reflector users just because that you couldnt sell your other crappy programs is NOT fair at all. You will lose your user base if you keep pushing them. Because in the software world, there are always alternatives.
nexus99
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 3:11 pm

Re:

Postby vcbnvbm » Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:00 am

nexus99 wrote:So, IF you DO your job properly, people WILL always appreciate it and donate money, even if you dont want.

If you really believe in this, you must stop asking for salary and start working for free. People will appreciate your work and give you lots of money, even if you refuse to take.
vcbnvbm
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:06 am

Re:

Postby vcbnvbm » Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:09 am

Alex.Davies wrote:One of the benefits of charging for reflector is that we will be able to afford to spend time on it. The "Open in .net reflector" feature isn't very good because we had to avoid parsing c# (and vb f# etc..) because that would take too long to implement. So we had to rely on piggy-backing on the existing "go to definition" feature.

So I can't promise anything, but if there's enough money to do the development work, it's something that I would like to improve.

You overcomplicate it too much. I have experience in this area and I can assure you, this task can be solved in much simpler way :)
vcbnvbm
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:06 am

Postby nexus99 » Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:19 pm

the problem is that they always want more money, even though they earn tons of money thanks to reflector. Check this post: http://www.red-gate.com/MessageBoard/vi ... hp?t=12889

People buy their other products thinking that redgate made reflector, even though they didnt. If redgate didnt acquire reflector, nobody would know their existence. They make fame out of Lutz Roeder's program, on a false promise to keep it free. And now they are famous, they turn it to money hole by fcking their users. How ethical...

What you say it is stupid because wikipedia already pays salary to its employees. But it doesnt force its users to pay. Because there will always be donations.
nexus99
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 3:11 pm

Re:

Postby vcbnvbm » Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:13 am

nexus99 wrote:What you say it is stupid because wikipedia already pays salary to its employees. But it doesnt force its users to pay. Because there will always be donations.

Requesting salary is not in open source way. They must stop forcing to pay for their work, and so must you. Because there will always be donations.
vcbnvbm
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:06 am


Return to .Net Reflector 6.x and .NET Reflector 6.x Pro

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests