Is Visual Studio written completely in .net at this point? Meaning will this get ported over automagically once all the .net pieces are in place on other platforms (assuming machine resources are available)?
Speaking for myself, not MSFT:
No, VS is a hellish mix of C++ and .NET. My personal prediction is that VS is unintelligible and will never be ported to anywhere else.
I'm really hoping JetBrains jumps into the .NET market with a C# IDE.
Oh goodness... this. I've been exploring C# lately, and absolutely love the language, but the tooling is abysmal.
Let me get this straight. The only serious IDE is Windows-specific, starts at $600 for the typical company (with advanced editions costing more than a small car)... and THEN you need to pay $200 more for a JetBrains add-on called ReSharper, to make it almost as nice as IntelliJ? That's pure insanity. As a Java developer, I could just pay $199 for IntelliJ, period. Or use Eclipse or Netbeans for free, either of which are light-years beyond MonoDevelop (the only real Visual Studio alternative on the .NET side).
The .NET ecosystem is WAY overdue for some IDE disruption. VS Code is interesting, but I'm skeptical about how far that will go if they don't eventually open source it. Without some legit alternative to Visual Studio, I fear that all of this .NET Core and cross-plat ASP.NET stuff is a waste of time in terms of retaining or drawing new developers.
I've been using VS 2013 Community (which is free) since it got released and I don't miss any of the "premium" features.
For personal tinkering, that's great (as long as you don't mind running on Windows, which is no longer the case with most web developers these days).
However, if you work for any reasonably established company, then it is illegal for you to use that Community Edition for company work. Your company must purchase a license for you, and that starts at $600 for the licensed equivalent of Community.
Perhaps that's perfectly fair. However, it's a huge bit of friction for a developer trying to introduce C# into their shop for the first time.
In the past, I've been able to lobby Java-based employers to let me write some internal apps in Scala. I've been successful in introducing a Golang web service. In both situations, I was asking a manager to take a chance on some unfamiliar tech, and on the risk that it would be hard to maintain if I left the company. However, and this is key... I was NOT asking them to approve any budget. So I won!
If I have to convince a manager to take some risks, AND to approve budget for $600 per seat, then forget it. I'll just wait a couple of years and see if Visual Studio Code gets open-sourced and turns into a sufficient VS replacement. If it doesn't, then .NET will continue to be something I tinker with in my personal time for hobby projects only (at most).
The bottom line is that pricing for .NET developer tools is ABSURDLY out of line with typical pricing for other dominant platforms today (i.e. Java, Python, Ruby, PHP, etc). Shops that are all-in on Microsoft across the board are just used to that, but it makes .NET completely non-competitive for potential new users outside that bubble.
It's the 21st-century now. You make your money in production (i.e. cloud platforms, proprietary app servers, support services, etc). Trying to make a buck off developer tools is daft. Developers have too many options to choose from these days, you'll just bleed mindshare like that.
VS Code utilises[1] OmniSharp-Roslyn[2] (which is an open source project not started by MS) to provide intellisense and refactoring for C#.
If you want to use something that is fully open-sourced (since day 1) and also utilises OmniSharp Roslyn, then check out OmniSharp Atom [3], which is an Atom plugin written mostly in TypeScript. OmniSharp Atom and OmniSharp Roslyn are both very welcoming of contributions. So if there's something that you see that's missing, feel free to send a PR :)
[1] https://code.visualstudio.com/Docs/languages#_c35