3 ms·
Well, that's always an option, so it isn't really advice. It's already what you have to do when the tooling support is bad. It's the poorest when an editor can
by always_good 8y ago
Well, that's always an option, so it isn't really advice. It's already what you have to do when the tooling support is bad. It's the poorest when an editor can instead inline its output of static analysis.
Integration has a lot of benefits like tell you the inference of intermediate types. "Don't care about good integration" isn't really advice.
It's like people who brag about syntax highlighting. The 99.9% rest of us consider it a good tool that improves our workflow.
- ahmedalsudani 8y agoNo dispute integration is nice, but it is not working properly from what my parent comment was saying. Your options are to wait for it to improve, fix it yourself, or change your tools/workflow. Some people seem to have had an allergic reaction to my comment. Maybe it's the emacs mention, which was tongue in cheek. Oh well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'll leave it as it is... for this is a righteous battle!
- always_good 8y agoI don't see a righteous battle. You mentioned Emacs as a solution which has a Rust plugin that has problems like most other Rust tooling. Yes, Rust's tooling landscape is immature and still a work in progress. Obviously you can just forgo editor integration all together. But you can do that in any editor.