3 ms·

This is clearly trying to sell on the success of Microsoft's Language Server Protocol. However, it only supports Scala at the moment, and having a quick look i

This is clearly trying to sell on the success of Microsoft's Language Server Protocol. However, it only supports Scala at the moment, and having a quick look it's goofing to be an awful fit for many other languages. I really don't feel they should be "camping" on such an obvious name without support for at least a half dozen different languages.

wereHamster 8y ago
To be fair, LSP was TypeScript only in the beginning. You have to start somewhere.
- pas 8y ago
  And there was the sort of famous (at least in Scala circles) rant by Paul Philips about how insanely dumb the compiler is, how slow and unhelpful, as it builds up all the structures from scratch every time, just to throw a syntax/type/other error, instead of keeping the state and only processing the delta (the changes and the minimal related nodes in the tree). So (type aware) programming should be a conversation with the compiler, trying to prove more and more about the code, while trying to clarify the intentions of the programmer.
  - jvican 8y ago
    FWIW, this has nothing to do with BSP and it's also not true technical wise.
cosmicexplorer 8y ago
I disagree, it seems to be building on a lot of discussion build tool developers have been having recently. E.g. Pants (mentioned in the article) supports exporting not just scala but multiple other languages into an intellij plugin we also develop, and we are involved or familiar with the work at the scala center and I personally think this is really exciting, and that the LSP analogy is pretty reasonable for the type of operations they intend.