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. tredre3 · 1789788807 · focus · HN ↗

      > 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!

      1. octoberfranklin · 1789800153 · focus · HN ↗

         we'd still have editor that only support one language properly

         Emacs supported zillions of languages before LSP.

         Zoom out.

         1. throwaway7356 · 1789806210 · focus · HN ↗

            If the old emacs approach is so much better, why is emacs switching to using LSP?

            1. octoberfranklin · 1790052094 · focus · HN ↗

               It isn't switching. It added support for it. Because that's what emacs does; it's the kitchen sink. Its mission in life is to do absolutely everything. That includes speaking shitty protocols.

               1. fragmede · 1790054950 · focus · HN ↗

                  <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;xkcd.com&#x2F;1172&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;xkcd.com&#x2F;1172&#x2F;

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.