Re: My perspective as a mid-level user on pros/cons of different editors

[Rudi C]

I was happy with the verilog-mode! It was great! I mean it didn't have many IDE features (just syntax highlighting?) but that was all I needed. I am saying emacs is good for this stuff! :D

I have not tried eglot. I imagined it would not be different from the lsp clients set up by Spacemacs and Doom. (My experience with Spacemacs' lsp support was nightmarish. The nonfunctional, intrusive, slow lsp kept activating itself even when disabled. I had to exclude all lsp packages and even then sometimes lsp showed up. :| ) I'm trying eglot out now. :-) But even if it is good, I think it's important that such core functionality be given first-class support. Neovim has also adopted this approach, and is rolling its own builtin lsp client despite already having a few clients.

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:06 AM Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden> wrote:

Hi Rudi,

Thanks for the write-up.

Just a few brief comments.

On 20.05.2020 03:29, Rudi C wrote:
> # Plain Emacs
>
> I have never tried plain, unconfigured emacs except for reporting bugs.
> My first impression of its UI is bad. I think hiding the toolbar
> improves the UI.

The toolbar's look depends on the OS and the DE. They look reasonable
under GNOME, for instance.

> In summary, Emacs is good for some specific well-supported languages
> (even then with lots of harassment and breakages), and obscure languages
> that are not supported well anywhere (e.g., verilog)

verilog-mode is developed externally and has an issue tracker here:
https://github.com/veripool/verilog-mode/issues

You might have more luck if you report whatever problems you're having.

> - Complete, first-class LSP support. Without this, all the fancy
> features of emacs are basically useless. Remember, a car needs first and
> foremost to move people from A to B. A stationary car with a rocket
> launcher is cool but also not much of a car.

Have you tried Eglot?