netcoredbg

There's an open source one by Samsung that is excellent, never had any issues with it: https://github.com/Samsung/netcoredbg

The MS dotnet debugger is not open-source - you can legally use it only with VS and VS Code (you could always give Samsung's open-source debugger a try, but it has certain limitations: https://github.com/Samsung/netcoredbg/issues/194#issuecommen...)

The debugger is proprietary but still works cross-platform. I don't know how Jetbrains does C# debugging in Rider exactly, but that shows that you don't have to use VS (Code) to do C# development if you don't want to. Thanks to Samsung of all companies, there's an open source C# debugger on GitHub (https://github.com/Samsung/netcoredbg). That seems to be the basis of the open source C# extension's debugging capabilities: https://open-vsx.org/extension/muhammad-sammy/csharp The VSCodium C# community wants Microsoft to open source their debugger instead of having to maintain an open source version themselves, but that doesn't mean you need to use Microsoft's open source version. If anything, this forceful separation makes it so that there never will be only one implementation (like there is for languages like Rust which have always been ope

Roslyn language server is OSS too: https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/tree/main/src/LanguageServe... There was never an issue with Omnisharp OSS-ness itself nor what replaced it. It was always about debugger and then "Dev Kit" extension which builds on top of the base one - "Dev Kit" is what isn't OSS and what requires an account. There is also an alternate open debugger: https://github.com/Samsung/netcoredbg / https://github.com/muhammadsammy/free-vscode-csharp (extension fork which swaps vsdbg out for this one)

> Why? How does the situation look in Java? jdb is part of OpenJDK, and doesn't try to implement any such restrictions. Neither does gdb, for that matter. But there is also a cultural difference. .NET libraries (including the standard library) are notoriously poor at implementing useful .ToString() overrides, because it's all designed to assume that you will use a debugger. For comparison, Scala and Rust have cultures that emphasize printf-friendliness, and I rarely have to reach for a debugger at all. The difference it makes for my sanity is immense (as someone who wasted years on the shitshow that is .NET). > It also seems you have not read the original reply. So to reiterate, there is https://github.com/Samsung/netcoredbg too. I spent way too long trying to get netcoredbg to work, and couldn't get it to do much of anything. Maybe it's

> So... still useless for the rest of us. Why? How does the situation look in Java? It also seems you have not read the original reply. So to reiterate, there is https://github.com/Samsung/netcoredbg too. In any case, I assume none of this has any use to you and the reply is posted simply as bad faith engagement, as it continues to happen whenever a piece of software that uses .NET is mentioned, because usually very few people within community have/take issue with the current (rich) tooling options. Note how many comments here and in similar submissions completely ignore the topic at hand and instead try to criticize the points that their authors assume are an issue with .NET itself.

They use their own in-house implementation. There's an OSS alternative from Samsung https://github.com/Samsung/netcoredbg but I haven't heard of anyone using it. In general, the debugger is not intentionally made unavailable but rather the "properietary" one is just the original Visual Studio debugger extracted into a standalone package adapted to cross-platform. Other than that, CoreCLR exposes rich debugger API, and debugger implementations just integrate with it, there are no "private bits" that would make this task insurmountable, there was just not much need to do so so far, and some Linux folks (as evidenced by skimming through other .NET submissions here) tend to have irrational and unsubstantiated hatred towards .NET which hinders otherwise positive community efforts.

> the .net debugger infrastructure is not open source This is vsdbg (which comes with Visual Studio 2022 and the Microsoft-provided binary of VS Code). There are alternatives like OmniSharp[1], the debugger shipped with JetBrains Rider, and Samsung's netcoredbg[2]. [1]: https://github.com/OmniSharp [2]: https://github.com/Samsung/netcoredbg

You can download the official .NET debugger but its license only permits you to use it with VS and VSCode. Luckily, there are various third-party debuggers available. E.g. from Samsung (MIT licensed) and Jetbrains (proprietary for their IDEs). https://github.com/Samsung/netcoredbg

> There is open source debugger from Samsung (https://github.com/Samsung/netcoredbg/), but it does not see much use. If you want to debug C# from Emacs, it’s the only choice AFAIK.

No, they are equally "guilty". At least they don't brag how OSS friendly they are. There is open source debugger from Samsung (https://github.com/Samsung/netcoredbg/), but it does not see much use.

On paper, but it sure doesn't feel like it when trying to use it. It's nearly impossible to find out which of the umpteen repositories contains the source for the class you're trying to understand, and MSDN won't be of much help. Much of the standard library also has a bunch of decoy source files that only contain signatures and/or mocks, so it's a pain to find the real version. OmniSharp has a "go-to-source" option, but you only get the real source if it's in the same solution. Otherwise you only get signatures. Try giving Metals[0] or Rust-Analyzer[1] a shot, this stuff is night-and-day. The official debugger (vsdbg) only works in VS and VSCode (and explicitly not in FOSS builds of VSCode). There is netcoredbg[2], but I still haven't figured out how to convince Emacs to use it. This wouldn't be as much of a problem if the culture wasn't