While this comment is overly general (some major editors ship without LSP support built in; many more do not have a sane configuration out-of-the-box), it is useful to learn about them and how your editor of choice integrates with them.
The landscape isn't generally intuitive, unfortunately, and while it's getting better, understanding the differences and interop places between LSP, Treesitter, DAP, your editor, and the underlying language-specific tooling can be a big, confusing time hog.
That said, and to be clear: LSP's been a huge boon for me. I used a minimal, kinda-broken configuration for a while with Python, then rebuilt the whole thing when I switched to Rust for work, and holy hell, this thing's awesome.
You are a craftsman, learn your tools. Could you imagine the equivalent from other professionals? A machinist saying, "Understanding the differences and interop places between the DRO, hand controls, and CNC controls for the lathe can be a big confusing time hog."
It takes a couple of hours, and it's a tool you use every single day. Learning how it works is the price of entry, not a mountain to overcome.
It is a fact that some useful things in the software world are a pain in the ass to learn, and that they could be better on that front.
LSP is one of those things, or at least it has been, for a while.
LSP is also something that's not necessary to writing quality code; it's absolutely a major quality-of-life boost, but before rewriting my configs after switching to Rust, my LSP usage was limited to being a slightly faster autocomplete engine more than anything. I didn't have keybinds set up for going to definitions, implementations, or references of symbols. I still put out what I think was decent code. I'm also better off now that I've adopted a more useful config.
IMO it's an important part of this industry (among others) to let developers have whatever workflow they want, within reason. If someone decides they want to invest the time into setting up LSP with their editor, that's their prerogative. If not, that's fine too. I don't know who among my present or past coworkers use LSP outside of occasionally chatting about editor configs with one or two of them, because they've usually figured out a workflow that lets them produce respectable code, and I've never had to question their tooling before questioning their methodology.
The only craftsmen are the ones at the edge of the lingo tree?
To use your own analogy, as a machinist myself : I can master the concept of the lathe and bow drill without learning simulation-driven CAM, and I would be no less a machinist than the guy pressing buttons on a brand new Haas.
If you work via notepad.exe and assembly with a compiler and linker ready in the next window, fine! the work is what matters.
While this comment is overly general (some major editors ship without LSP support built in; many more do not have a sane configuration out-of-the-box), it is useful to learn about them and how your editor of choice integrates with them.
The landscape isn't generally intuitive, unfortunately, and while it's getting better, understanding the differences and interop places between LSP, Treesitter, DAP, your editor, and the underlying language-specific tooling can be a big, confusing time hog.
That said, and to be clear: LSP's been a huge boon for me. I used a minimal, kinda-broken configuration for a while with Python, then rebuilt the whole thing when I switched to Rust for work, and holy hell, this thing's awesome.
This is way too equivocating.
You are a craftsman, learn your tools. Could you imagine the equivalent from other professionals? A machinist saying, "Understanding the differences and interop places between the DRO, hand controls, and CNC controls for the lathe can be a big confusing time hog."
It takes a couple of hours, and it's a tool you use every single day. Learning how it works is the price of entry, not a mountain to overcome.
It is a fact that some useful things in the software world are a pain in the ass to learn, and that they could be better on that front.
LSP is one of those things, or at least it has been, for a while.
LSP is also something that's not necessary to writing quality code; it's absolutely a major quality-of-life boost, but before rewriting my configs after switching to Rust, my LSP usage was limited to being a slightly faster autocomplete engine more than anything. I didn't have keybinds set up for going to definitions, implementations, or references of symbols. I still put out what I think was decent code. I'm also better off now that I've adopted a more useful config.
IMO it's an important part of this industry (among others) to let developers have whatever workflow they want, within reason. If someone decides they want to invest the time into setting up LSP with their editor, that's their prerogative. If not, that's fine too. I don't know who among my present or past coworkers use LSP outside of occasionally chatting about editor configs with one or two of them, because they've usually figured out a workflow that lets them produce respectable code, and I've never had to question their tooling before questioning their methodology.
3 replies →
lol ok but where does it stop?
I got into programming long before LSPs and MCPs.
The only craftsmen are the ones at the edge of the lingo tree?
To use your own analogy, as a machinist myself : I can master the concept of the lathe and bow drill without learning simulation-driven CAM, and I would be no less a machinist than the guy pressing buttons on a brand new Haas.
If you work via notepad.exe and assembly with a compiler and linker ready in the next window, fine! the work is what matters.
6 replies →
Except these days companies are telling you to not be a craftsman but a supervisor.
I want to be a craftsman and know my tools and want to actually enjoy using them, but it's becoming less accepted to do so.
[dead]
AI agents also use LSP to be more efficient with source code [1].
[1]: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/plugins-reference#lsp-server...
Definitely not all.