2 ms·
> Stop letting Microsoft design protocols and APIs. Unfortunately nobody else stepped up to do it. I'm glad that the code editors out there didn't wait for yo
by tredre3 7d ago
> Stop letting Microsoft design protocols and APIs.
Unfortunately nobody else stepped up to do it.
I'm glad that the code editors out there didn't wait for your theoretical better designed protocol and decided to adopt LSP. Otherwise we'd still have editor that only support one language properly, and the rest is treated like text. If the price to pay is that it sucks for the handful of people who have to work with it, so be it. For every LSP developer that suffers there are tens of thousands of downstream users who benefit from better language support in their favorite editor!
- octoberfranklin 7d agowe'd still have editor that only support one language properly Emacs supported zillions of languages before LSP. Zoom out.
- pjmlp 7d agoAs someone that got introduced to it in 1996, and was a fan of XEmacs variant, still remembers enough keybindings and Elisp, supported beyond plain syntax highlighting was very much hit and miss, even nowadays.
- shakow 7d agoI have been an emacs user for over a decade now, and if you think that language “support” was as good before LSP, I have a bridge to sell you.
- throwaway7356 7d agoIf the old emacs approach is so much better, why is emacs switching to using LSP?
- rcxdude 7d agoBut the effort to do so was then entirely duplicated for other editors. LSP turns an N*M effort into an N+M effort, the upshot of which being far more complete coverage for both editors and languages.