LSP: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Re:LSP: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly by jchw on Saturday September 07, 2024 @02:18AM (#41471859)

I don't follow. The reason why you use LSP is because it is a common protocol. LSP is valuable because it is a standard protocol; build an LSP client into your text editor and gain access to the rich ecosystem of existing LSP servers, build an LSP server for your language and get rich code intelligence for your language inside many of the most popular text editors.

Of course someone else could just try to make a competing protocol with LSP, but I think that's a waste of time when it could most likely be incrementally and backwards compatibly improved quite a lot. And also, any given party only is one side of the equation, so any given entity only has so much sway here.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:LSP: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly by ReleaseCandidat on Saturday September 07, 2024 @05:17AM (#41472670)

> The reason why you use LSP is because it is a common protocol.

Exactly. And if "everybody" (except MS) in the committee agrees on the implementation of LSP, they can define a new common protocol too. The old LSP clients and servers won't stop working, they may slowly die out if the new protocol "wins".

Don't get me wrong, this is just a hypothetically perfect solution, which didn't happen before LSP and I'm sceptical that it will happen in the foreseeable future, as LSP is "good enough". And with "it" I mean that there won't be such a commitee, much less a new, common protocol.

It will always need a new, better and open protocol implemented in a successful editor or IDE to gain traction and spread (like what happened with VS Code and LSP).

[ Parent | on HN ]