[virmundi]

Personally it is because the languages feel like they are written for Visual Studio. So if I was using Mono five years ago, I had essentially VIM. Therefore I didn't do .NET.

Another reason is due to how the stack feels like it's playing catch up. ASP.NET MVC trailed behind multiple libraries in Java. The .NET developers were condescending the whole time. They would rant against MVC. They would extol the virtues of WebForms. The same is true with many other ideas. If something is not part of the official stack, .NET developers ridiculed it. I remember conversations where I recommend a library like log4j. Mocked and told how Windows logging was all I needed.

In the end, so many better things exist for free that I see little reason to use .NET. I can get a good editor from node.org built on eclipse. There are paid ides that do that as well, better and cheaper than VS. Because MS was so closed source and proprietary I'm the past I think they lost the PR battle.

[grexican]

You know, I've been using VS for so long and I've gotten it for free for the last 3 years since I'm a startup and a part of their BizSpark program that I hadn't even factored that in. That's a very good point.

My IDE consists of a few paid things that you can get for free elsewhere. I've tried using eclipse, but I'm just not as comfortable. But I'm sure I could get there if I jumped.

Things I pay for: * VS - quit expensive * Visual Assist X - $90'ish a year * PHP for VS - $100'ish (because it was cheaper and more efficient to buy a plugin than learn a new environment)

When I add it all up, I have spent quite a bit on the IDE. I don't necessarily agree that the IDE is being beaten by other IDEs. The extensibility is through the roof and I use a lot of tools that really enhance the "shortcomings" of VS. However, because of the plugins, VS is quite bloated and takes way too long to start up.

One of the best arguments I've seen, thanks for posting.