3 ms·
Microsoft did promote it, at least in its early days, as an open and standard system, and the LSP as a way to go from MxN language specific IDE implementations
by beagle3 6y ago
Microsoft did promote it, at least in its early days, as an open and standard system, and the LSP as a way to go from MxN language specific IDE implementations to M+N. But tben, they make it 2xM+N by forbidding the use of their LSPs in other editors - which, if done by everyone would put as back at MxN.
This is hypocritical behavior, and it does remind people of EE&E which was Microsoft’s explicit policy in the past. It’s not an exact repeat, but it does seem to rhyme.
- petr_tik 6y ago> by forbidding the use of their LSPs in other editors How can they prevent my, let’s say vim, client from connecting to a closed-source server if they both speak the same protocol?
- pritambaral 6y agoOne way would be to make the closed-source server speak mostly-but-not-quite-the-same protocol.
- petr_tik 6y agoOther servers like clangd have documented extensions, but I see your point. I’m glad the protocol is discussed and developed in the open - I think it’s really helped the IDE story in other editors.
- jlgaddis 6y agoAs pritambaral mentioned, they can make some minor changes to the server that are just enough to cause the client to no longer work. This isn't exactly unheard of when it comes to Microsoft. I mean, you don't have to go far to find an example of them doing exactly that -- there's prime example [0] right here in this thread! (Alsa known as "extend"; see also "Active Directory") -- [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25719294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25719294