3 ms·
How do you define "quality"? For example, `rust-analyzer` (the Rust LSP) is deliberately buggy, with features being added even if they don't yet handle all edge
by Georgelemental 3y ago
How do you define "quality"? For example, `rust-analyzer` (the Rust LSP) is deliberately buggy, with features being added even if they don't yet handle all edge cases. If one feature crashes, it's no big deal and the rest of the server continues to operate. The reasoning is that occasional wrong completions are not a critical issue; for the specific use-case of an LSP, it's better to have more features.
- BaculumMeumEst 3y agoIn this case I personally define "quality" as how well the language LSPs do their job without getting in my way. Haskell's would often crash, have lots of weird issues, and use insane amounts of memory that would force me to bounce the server periodically. I've heard about Rust's LSP being buggy, but I had great success with it when I used it in a project. It gave a lot of useful suggestions and linting in relatively complex situations so it's understandable that it would have a hairy edge cases. But I never really saw them in personal usage, which was a very different experience from HLS. So my personal impression of rust-analyzer was "high quality", and HLS less so.