My opinion ?

Eclipse doesn't force you to use Micro$oft exclusive libraries when compiling ... Visual Studio forces you to include include "Redistributable" along with your compiled work.

That's language dependent isn't it?

Visual ... C , C++, C#, F#, Basic .... all compile using MS libraries. ( I use QT for C++ to avoid this problem)

My opinion ?

Eclipse doesn't force you to use Micro$oft exclusive libraries when compiling ... Visual Studio forces you to include include "Redistributable" along with your compiled work.

That's language dependent isn't it?

Visual ... C , C++, C#, F#, Basic .... all compile using MS libraries. ( I use QT for C++ to avoid this problem)

C#, F#, VB and many others all run on the same platform, its actually pretty awesome. MS Libraries are not a "problem", they actually have a much better standard to Java libraries, I've seen null parameters for a constructor expected in Java libs, had me going around in circles.

Say that when trying to adapt your program for a Mac or Linux platform.

Don't get me started on the workarounds that kill the program's performance .

BTW under the fine print, Micro$oft does ** NOT ** allow you to resell closed source Visual Studio programs without a license.

BTW under the fine print, Micro$oft does ** NOT ** allow you to resell closed source Visual Studio programs without a license.

That's just nonsense; even the Express versions of Visual Studio allow you to sell your program comercially.

The old "$" thing is just uncool, by the way; definitely showing some prejudice there - uniformed prejudice too - if you think your preferred platform is superior you shouldn't need to spread FUD in order to support it.

BTW under the fine print, Micro$oft does ** NOT ** allow you to resell closed source Visual Studio programs without a license.

Are you sure about that?

Why don't look at this: http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/3030a179-f7be-4f40-84ff-debd6d290b2c/visual-studio-express-2010-commercial-use-

You posted a link to a forum ...

Here is directly from the end user agreement

PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE LIMITATION.

Unless otherwise specified, the Services are for your personal and non-commercial use. You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any information, software, products or services obtained from the Services.

You posted a link to a forum ...

Here is directly from the end user agreement

PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE LIMITATION.

Unless otherwise specified, the Services are for your personal and non-commercial use. You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any information, software, products or services obtained from the Services.

And you have provided absolutely nothing to back this up. A quick Google for the first few words from your quote shows that to be standard boilerplate text in almost every single EULA out there, so it signifies absolutely nothing. You're also conveniently ignoring the "unless otherwise specified" part.

Meanwhile, and although the page has since disappeared from Microsoft's website, thanks to the magic of the Wayback Machine we can see exactly what it said about the Express editions: http://web.archive.org/web/20100124084454/http://www.microsoft.com/express/Support/Support-faq.aspx

Can I use Express Editions for commercial use?
Yes, there are no licensing restrictions for applications built using Visual Studio Express Editions.

So it's probably best to drop the uninformed nonsense roundabout now before you make an even bigger fool of yourself over this.