Re: Renaming eglot -- or at least add an alias?

[Stephen Leake]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
>   > > Because all of the interaction between server and client in lsp is json
>   > > there's a huge overhead with parsing and shipping things into the emacs
>   > > user interface.  So IMO what tree-sitter is good at should be left to
>   > > tree-sitter.

Premature optimization.

In practice, eglot is fast enough. That's why LSP servers are so
popular.

I suppose we could invoke a climate change argument; tree-sitter might
use measurably less electricity for the same task on the same CPU. That
would be interesting to find out. I suspect running a display totally
swamps that.

> Supposing this conclusion is valid (which seems plausible to me),
> what does that imply about enabliing Eglot and Tree-sitter?

Nothing.

> Should we have a command to enable both together (using Tree-sitter for
> the jobs it can do, and Eglot for the others) 

That should certainly be possible; that's what ada-mode 8.0 does for
eglot and the wisi parser (yet another alternative to tree-sitter).

Whether it's one command, or several custom options, is up for
discussion. ada-mode has three custom options, for face, indent, and xref.

> Should we have three levels of enablement?  (Neither one, Tree-sitter
> only, or both)?

It should be on a feature-by-feature basis; as you mention, for a given
language, tree-sitter and eglot may support different features.

-- 
-- Stephe