3 ms·
That's worth something, but having a standard protocol is worth so much more. If your architecture had become the de-facto standard for this stuff, I can assure
by ziml77 5y ago
That's worth something, but having a standard protocol is worth so much more. If your architecture had become the de-facto standard for this stuff, I can assure you that I'd be praising it instead.
- jhgb 5y agoStandard in what sense? Surely Dart has its specific requirements like any other language. I'm not convinced it's possible to standardize such functionality without limiting yourself to a subset of what you might want to have implemented.
- macrael 5y agoStandard in the sense that most languages and most editors have adopted it: https://microsoft.github.io/language-server-protocol/implementors/servers/ https://microsoft.github.io/language-server-protocol/impleme...
- jhgb 5y agoIn that case I'm not sure that it's "worth so much more". As I said, you end up with lowest common denominators, not with increased developer comfort. For example, in case of Common Lisp, I very strongly doubt that LSP supports such things as interactive resumable conditions, CLOS/MOP object model for cross-referencing, or image state and session handling. At least it didn't a few years ago when I looked at it. But sure, if you're not very demanding, something like LSP might be enough for you.
- macrael 5y agoDoes that work in BBEdit?