27 ms·

So basically "write your language support for an IDE once, have it work everywhere (that uses LSP)"?

• marcosdumay 6y ago
  That's the idea. It's reasonably well supported now and its use is only increasing. The standard is very OOP centered. It's not much that it won't work on other paradigms, but that it's limited to what is useful for OOP, so it won't lead to a perfect IDE to them.
  • throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    May be wrong but I don't believe that's true. It provides language info for a language, there's nothing (?) that ties it to OO especially.
  • IggleSniggle 6y ago
    I don’t understand this comment. The syntax provider can be written in any language, and is basically just an abstraction for IDE behavior. Given that the instructions for how the IDE should represent any given code block, user behavior, or reactiveness in the IDE are defined by the language provider, what exactly is lacking for any arbitrary language? The only thing I can think of is that a given language may not have suitable representation in the IDE, eg a data-flow visual language when most of the IDEs features are centered around text.