> Every product relying on "community plugins" for their features implies it works fine the 6 first months, then it's a nightmare
Eclipse has been thriving since 2002 mostly by virtue of being able to coordinate developers via plugin's and a business-friendly license.
They did need to upgrade early plugins into OSGI, and most of the new plugin designs benefit from copying OSGI, et al. The key is SAT solvers for dependencies and namespace separation, not forcing clients into the same dependency version.
But as you suggest, relying on the community is a moral hazard. In Eclipse there were big players willing to fund key use-cases for their own purposes; elsewhere I've seen sufficient monetization of plugins to offer incentives and stability.
I would add that VSCode plugins follow a different development model. While any OSGI/Eclipse plugin can provide an interface, I believe in VSCode you're limited to the API's they give you (and they make a mess of them, so there's more inconsistencies e.g., in LSP support that anyone can enumerate).
Eclipse has been thriving since 2002 mostly by virtue of being able to coordinate developers via plugin's and a business-friendly license.
They did need to upgrade early plugins into OSGI, and most of the new plugin designs benefit from copying OSGI, et al. The key is SAT solvers for dependencies and namespace separation, not forcing clients into the same dependency version.
But as you suggest, relying on the community is a moral hazard. In Eclipse there were big players willing to fund key use-cases for their own purposes; elsewhere I've seen sufficient monetization of plugins to offer incentives and stability.
I would add that VSCode plugins follow a different development model. While any OSGI/Eclipse plugin can provide an interface, I believe in VSCode you're limited to the API's they give you (and they make a mess of them, so there's more inconsistencies e.g., in LSP support that anyone can enumerate).