Thread

1. octoberfranklin · 1789787510 · focus · HN ↗

   Enter hell: LSP assumes that it's the source of truth, but you still need to access the filesystem yourself, and do it in a synchronized way

   LSP is an example of utterly horrid technical design.

   Stop letting Microsoft design protocols and APIs. They are so. bad. at. it.

   1. duttish · 1789787613 · focus · HN ↗

      I've never looked into LSP, how would you design it?

      1. lenkite · 1789800908 · focus · HN ↗

         Wouldn't a normalized protocol based on AST vocabulary and tree operations make more sense ?

         1. looperhacks · 1789896264 · focus · HN ↗

            That would require the editor to be able to build an AST - defeating the point of LSP, because now the editor needs to know every possible language again

            1. lenkite · 1789927770 · focus · HN ↗

               I meant the language server builds the normalized, lossless AST and gives it to the editor. Changes in the AST can be provided as events/diffs to the editor. The normalized, source-mapped AST is effectively the stable language protocol. (Possibly given in a columnar, database form via Apache Arrow, but thats impl specific). Was discussing alternative architectures with a collague since even the best language servers really suck on large projects.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.