2 ms·
All you're saying is that IDEA is currently more mature than language server support for most languages. That's obvious, and it doesn't say anything about wheth
by cactus2093 6y ago
All you're saying is that IDEA is currently more mature than language server support for most languages. That's obvious, and it doesn't say anything about whether the language server design & protocol itself is good or bad. I don't see anything inherently more generic or extensible about IDEA, they're just further along with more languages implemented.
On top of that most LSP implementations are open source which lowers the cost of entry for developers and avoids lock-in with proprietary IDE's. And the well specified network protocol makes it much more flexible to different dev setups (e.g. run the LSP on more powerful cloud/remote hardware for large apps, use it with docker-based development setups, etc).
So I would argue the exact opposite, the model of proprietary IDE's building walled gardens around so much useful developer tooling for otherwise open-source languages and ecosystems, is what is broken.
- kuschku 6y agoWhat I’m mostly saying is that with such a heterogeneous group of LSPs, they’ll never end up providing the same options — they’ll name them differently, they’ll work differently, etc. Every editor works the same now — but every language completely different. A user writing JS in vim can write it the same way in VSCode or Atom, but a user using Atom to write JS can’t write Rust in Atom the same way. I’d love to see a different LSP protocol, one where the LSP exposes much more information, and the editor implements the functionality on top of that, so every language works the same.