I remember reading your rationale initially, but I have forgotten (I think it was a good couple years ago right?). Can you summarize super quickly?
-
-
Replying to @tahini
What it really is, is a proposal for how all code sharing should work on modern computers. If we do that, everything will become insanely slow and a giant undebuggable disaster.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Jonathan_Blow
My experience with language servers is basically just IDE-kind of features in Vim — when you say code sharing, you mean in the sense of how different files relate to one another in this kind of context? (go-to-definition, etc)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tahini
I mean, what are "language servers"? They are a way to communicate with code that provides autocomplete information and whatever. Is there anything fundamentally different between that, and any other kind of library code you would use to do anything?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Jonathan_Blow @tahini
When you read the justifications people give for why LSP is a good idea, are these justifications restricted to LSP in some way, or do they apply to all code?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Jonathan_Blow
I honestly haven't read too many justifications (that's partly what spawned this question in my mind). I remember a time when there was ctags in Vim for this kind of stuff. The LSP paradigm, for me, feels easier. But I am curious if I am missing something?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tahini @Jonathan_Blow
Put another way, when I think 'bloated and slow', I typically think of an actual IDE.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tahini
Okay, so, how is it that an actual IDE gets 'bloated and slow'?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Jonathan_Blow
Continual expansion of features, driven by monetization. Complexity, basically.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tahini
Really? Does Visual Studio of today have a lot more features than Visual Studio did in 2005?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Like enough features to compensate for Moore's Law? Like 100x as many features?
-
-
Replying to @Jonathan_Blow
No, not 100x as many features. Not enough to compensate for Moore’s Law.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tahini @Jonathan_Blow
I get that programmers today are spoiled by processing power and that has made them inferior programmers when it comes to perf — I’m just trying to get at how fact that is particularly highlighted with LSP
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.