Please do work on Silverlight next version. I feel Silverlight is great tool which has best in cross development web experience. Although you guys are spending time on HTML5 and other stuffs, but I feel it takes years to bring HTML 5 is not flexible enough like Silverlight.

One more thing, as a Silverlight developer it was only my chance to replace flash from my projects, but as you guys stopped working on it; I feel that I wasted my time in learning Silverlight.

Do start working on Silverlight, Only this will get you back in increasing footprints in website business

The existing System.Resources.ResourceManager is based on .resx files built into a fallback assembly with multiple satellite assemblies. This model works fine for some situations but it is inappropriate for others. It is relatively easy to create custom resource managers but it is not simple to get an application to use the custom resource manager instead of the ResourceManager.

What is needed is an abstraction from the 'default' ResourceManager - a mechanism by which I can tell my application to use *my* resource manager instead of System.Resources.ResourceManager.

The solution should not be tied to a specific user interface technology. For example the ASP.NET Web Forms Resource Provider mechanism is designed to work with ASP.NET (Web Forms) only. The solution should work with ASP.NET MVC, ASP.NET Web Forms, WPF, Silverlight, Windows Forms et al.

The solution should be suitable for use with (1) file based resource solutions (e.g. .resx, .xliff, .rc, .csv, .resw, .po), (2) database based resource solutions (e.g. ADO.NET, Entity Framework) and (3) service based resource solutions (e.g. WCF, Web API, Web Service, OData).

Ideally the existing Strongly Typed Resource Class (STRC) implementation would use this resource manager abstraction so that all of the existing code that is based on STRCs would be able to use the new solution.

Code reviews currently can only be requested and viewed by VS Premium and Ultimate users. I fail to see why this feature is not available to anyone using TFS, regardless of Visual Studio version. If peer code review is required, then all members of the team must do it. However, in our company, we only get Premium MSDN licenses for developers that need it. Not everyone needs all the bells and whistles that come with Premium. And I don't think its worth the extra $5,000, per developer, to upgrade to Premium just to do code review. We would love to use Visual Studio for code review, but not for that price. We will have to go out and find a third party tool to do it for now.

This has been split from https://visualstudio.uservoice.com/admin/forums/121579-visual-studio/suggestions/2035769-make-edit-and-continue-work-more-globally.

Edit and Continue has always been a staple of Visual Studio development; it's one of the most important features that make it better than other IDEs. In 2002, Visual Studio .Net came out, and didn't have Edit and Continue, which made it very hard to use. In 2003, the new version had Edit and Continue and I was jubilant.

Enable edit and continue for lambda changes; that might mean that you even have to allow edit and continue to add new methods, but that should be possible using light-weight code generation.

(Filed on behalf of "The Configurator": https://visualstudio.uservoice.com/admin/users/14358195-the-configurator)

The new Git source control provider in VS2012 U2 works quite nicely, but it keeps adding new files to the git index automatically. This messes with my git workflow so much I actually had to disable the provider. The behavior also seems quite arbitrary, i.e. it doesn't make sense to me why anyone would want to add a new file to the git index right when it was created. Please make the Git provider not touch git and the git index ever, unless the user requests it to do so (the provider is actually quite good in this regard already, just not when adding new files).

Visual Studio only provides hlsl compilation tools for C++ projects, while C# projects which also use hlsl are left without this facility. This is a glaring inconsistency in the tools provided to each language. C# is meant to be a first-class language yet the DirectX tools which are built in to Visual Studio are not equally provided to C#, this is an unnecessary and arbitrary limitation.

Developing DirectX applications with C# is becoming easier and there are now more tools than ever to work with this combination of technologies, including SlimDX and SharpDX, both fully capable managed DirectX frameworks (wrappers). Please provide C# developers with hlsl compilation, and for that matter, all the DirectX and graphics related tools that are provided to C++ developers, including the shader designer and the model editor. These features are equally usable by C#/DirectX developers as for C++/DirectX developers.

Why?

Because it compiles code faster on large code bases.
Because it is more C++11 compliant.
Because it will be updated with fixes in a timely manner.
Because it will require less of your maintenance.
Because you can contribute back to it to make it even better.
Because you can build tools out of it like Intellisense, static analysis, etc.
Because MSFT can focus on Visual Studio UI and other elements that make it a nice IDE.
Because this is what C++ developers would prefer (non-biased opinion here :P ).
Because code portability is important in this platform diverse world.

Seems like it would help fulfill the promise of: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/collaboration/focus/cs/phoenix.aspx

I don't know how to write this suggestions clearer than the current title. I'll try to explain the background of this suggestions
This is the current situations in VS 2012:
1. F# has included as one of first class language since VS 2010
2. F# user base has grown larger than before, thanks to #1, Microsoft! But unfortunately? (read next)
3. Can't create ASP.NET project template using F# other than C# or VB.
4. Can't create WPF (hence Silverlight) project visually using F# (again, other than using C# or VB)
5. Can't create visual Windows Store app using F#, just like #4.
6. Other IDE such as Eclipse has provided great support and also open architecture using open plugin when dealing with Visual Designer on IDE. Therefore any language running on Eclipse can directly add visual designer support on Eclipse, not just Java and C++. It's also easier to create another visual design support for Eclipse for other programming language.
7. Xamarin has provide us F# support to create ASP.NET project and it has proven that F# is not just for numerical analysis and data centric (e.g. type provider) anymore. This will make VS 2012 less appealing to code F# on ASP.NET directly.
8. If there is other language runs on Visual Studio included as part of VS project templates, there's a large possibility it won't have visual design support other than C# or VB. Even C++ in Visual Studio can't be used to create ASP.NET and WPF projects, for example.

Based on those situations, I propose:
1. Make VIsual Studio's visual designers to be extensible and open enough (it doesn't have to be open source) to be available for other programming language to use. I know this will require large rewrite of current VS visual designer, but this closed and exclusive architecture (closed that it's only available on C# and VB) will provide less productivity when using other languages.
2. In accordance to #1 above, there should be open architecture (can be in form of open API) to simply add visual designer if there;s only small languages at initial releases for the next release of Visual Studio.

A sample use case of # 2 is: if there's VS 2015, the Visual designer support may only be available for C# and VB but the Visual designer can be available to be customized and then further repackaged as complete custom project template with visual designer supports for other language such as F# and can be other languages be another G# or Z# (or whatever) as well as long as it runs on top of .NET CLR.

The term visual designer I mentioned here includes current visual designers we have in VS 2012: ASP.NET Webform, ASP.NET MVC, WPF, Silverlight, Windows Phone, Windows Store.

IEnumerable<T> has the ToList<T> extension method, and it would be very useful to have equivalent ToQueue<T> and ToHashSet<T> methods. Although Queue<T> and HashSet<T> have constructors that take an IEnumerable<T>, they cannot be used when T is an anonymous type. For example this is an error:

var q = new Queue(Enumerable.Range(1, 3).Select(i => new { Prop = 7 }));

But the equivalent using ToQueue works fine. It is fairly easy to define your own extension methods along the lines of:

public static HashSet<T> ToHashSet<T>(this IEnumerable<T> collection)
{
return new HashSet<T>(collection);
}

But the use case is very common, so they seem worth adding to the .NET Framework, and they would round out the set started with ToList<T>.