2 ms·

With C# and TypeScript and all LISPs I've worked with, they work hand in hand with the compiler/runtime to provide absolute correctness at all levels. Absolutel

With C# and TypeScript and all LISPs I've worked with, they work hand in hand with the compiler/runtime to provide absolute correctness at all levels. Absolutely first class. (And I agree Elpy does not qualify for that term) And while we're on the subject: Only Microsoft had the foresight (or hindsight, insight, whatever) to realize this was a general problem and propose a solution which applies to all editors and all languages: https://github.com/Microsoft/language-server-protocol https://github.com/Microsoft/language-server-protocol https://github.com/Microsoft/language-server-protocol/wiki/Protocol-Implementations https://github.com/Microsoft/language-server-protocol/wiki/P... You'd think Google, with their tons of resources could put together a few resources and join a new, future-proof non-NIH standard for Go, but so far they seems to be lagging.

geoka9 10y ago
I agree, a common standard would be good. That said, experience taught me to distrust any proposed standard that comes out of Microsoft. Besides, I find that with the programming editor communities, such standards are not that important - as long as a language has the tooling, it'll be integrated, standard or no standard.
- josteink 10y ago
  This protocol is about reducing the N languages and M editors = N*M client/server implementations with a much better N+M solution, where we don't have to reinvent 200 wheels every time someone makes a new editor or language. And the protocol is open. Seriously what do you have to lose, besides a shit-ton of redundant work? Distrust? Distrust exactly what? Are you sure you aren't being your own worst enemy? See here for a list of fully open source and MS-independent implementations: http://langserver.org/ http://langserver.org/
  - josteink 10y ago
    Too late to edit, so replying to self. Looking at that list, I see Go is actually doing pretty well these days. I retract my criticism. That said, as the page shows, having full editor support these days is getting pretty common.

geoka9 10y ago

I agree, a common standard would be good. That said, experience taught me to distrust any proposed standard that comes out of Microsoft. Besides, I find that with the programming editor communities, such standards are not that important - as long as a language has the tooling, it'll be integrated, standard or no standard.

josteink 10y ago
This protocol is about reducing the N languages and M editors = N*M client/server implementations with a much better N+M solution, where we don't have to reinvent 200 wheels every time someone makes a new editor or language. And the protocol is open. Seriously what do you have to lose, besides a shit-ton of redundant work? Distrust? Distrust exactly what? Are you sure you aren't being your own worst enemy? See here for a list of fully open source and MS-independent implementations: http://langserver.org/ http://langserver.org/
- josteink 10y ago
  Too late to edit, so replying to self. Looking at that list, I see Go is actually doing pretty well these days. I retract my criticism. That said, as the page shows, having full editor support these days is getting pretty common.