3 ms·

If you're happy with lsp-mode, there's not much reason to switch. The main thing about eglot is that it's less-intrusive. It doesn't make any UI changes (unlike

If you're happy with lsp-mode, there's not much reason to switch. The main thing about eglot is that it's less-intrusive. It doesn't make any UI changes (unlike lsp-ui), and doesn't even install a keymap by default. But it hooks into Emacs' existing facilities (like xref and completion-at-point) and lets them use an lsp-powered backend. There are functions for things that don't already have an equivalent (like refactorings or code actions), but they're not bound.

anyfoo 4y ago
> like xref and completion-at-point Where does that persistence myth come from that lsp does not hook into that? Maybe it once did not, but I've been using lsp for at least a couple of years now and I do not remember it not using xref. Not so sure about completion-at-point, haven't checked because my completions work as they should using company.