Re: dash.el [was: Re: Imports / inclusion of s.el into Emacs]

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 23.05.2020 03:08, João Távora wrote:
> Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > I don't think that's what "integrated" means.
>
> Why not? You find the Rust file, activate Eglot and it starts working.
> Some major modes might even automate the second step, if it's cheap.  I
> know people really like `eglot-ensure`, which that starts up a server
> automatically.

It's less "integrated" than what that other mode is doing.

So worst case scenario, people will point out that Emacs core has 
released something not entirely complete while there is a package with 
all batteries included.

> > If the LSP settings are broken or outdated, however, the user are more
> > likely to see that as Eglot being broken or obsolete.
>
> I've explained this has specific to do with LSP.  It's the fact that you
> rely on an external program.  Emacs does that all the time, with aspell,
> shell programs, so nothing different here.  Aren't you ruby-mode
> maintainer?  Doesn't it call the rubocop program?  Is it rotting
> frequently?

Again, examples of much simpler programs. And historically stable. And 
Rubocop has its own, well-documented configuration interface (text file) 
that's expected to be edited by users.

> > > Of course, as you know, the whole point of LSP to start with is to make
> > > these obsolete.
> > Some basic idea was like that, maybe. But then the reality
> > intervened. And people value features more than stability.
>
> I don't think it's very bad, the fact that only minor customization is
> needed for a small set of servers means the idea is mostly solid.  It's
> a question of good defaults, mostly.  And growing the protocol.

And of every major mode author making the effort to familiarize 
themselves with this stuff, apparently.

> > And I'm fairly sure language servers will continue to provide their
> > ad-hoc extensions because different languages have different needs.
>
> Yes, true, but from these two years I've been seeing less and less of
> that.  I bet a good majority of the servers Eglot supports work out of
> the box, no special customization.  pyls, clangd, the javascript one,
> and probably many of the other simpler ones.

You might be forgetting that Eglot doesn't exactly support _all_ the 
features that languages servers offer. At least, that's my impression of 
your answer to the question about refactoring actions.

And take the lsp-rust example again: 
https://github.com/emacs-lsp/lsp-mode/blob/057e8789638a0bf493930637185694b6b09ea58e/lsp-rust.el#L259-L283

There are 24 settings there. Perhaps half is outdated or unimportant. 
Who will be responsible for setting them and choosing their values?