Not PP, but I used to work for an automotive subcontractor company, and I've heard a few stories about fatal car accidents that lead to lawsuits, which proved that the car design was the reason for the accident, yet the car manufacturer just payed "damages" to the relatives (or settled out of court, maybe) and never bothered to change the design. Apparently, it was more expensive to reconfigure their production pipelines than pay for an occasional death.
That said, this is probably what any big enough company would do. So your point still stands, maybe car manufacturers are no different.
Surely you're joking, right?
I've never encountered those two phrases where they meant the same thing.
Couldn't care less - absolute zero care. Nothing can disappoint me whatever happen.
Could care less - some degree of care is present. Thing can actually get worse
> Contrast this with Emacs and Vim. They just don’t have proper completion as an editor’s extension point. Rather, they expose low-level cursor and screen manipulation API, and then people implement competing completion frameworks on top of that!
I think he has a valid point even if he didn't state it in a technically correct manner.
Having LSP support was a godsend for things like Emacs and NeoVim.
I don't expect that very long time users and hardcore adopters (people who actually regularly spend time programming their editors in Elisp/Vimscript/Lua/etc) of these programs are not going to see it because they have their own tailor made custom workflows that work for them and would be disrupted by switching to LSP.
But for everybody else LSP has made things SOOOO much easier and better. It's ridiculous how much better things work nowadays.
Years ago I would spend weeks farting around with this or that python plugin to get something working really well in Emacs or Vim. There was a whole mess of different frameworks and plugins, dependencies, and scripts that any user had to wade through. A lot of "work for me" type post. Posts implying that icicles the best thing you could ever possibly use in Emacs and things of that nature.
Nowadays I can just install Doom-Emacs, enable the LSP support for whatever language-of-the-day I happen to be looking at... run doom doctor to tell me what dependencies to install and have actually really good language support up and running in about 20 minutes of work and reading. Another 2-3 hours to get used to the key bindings and basic functioning and I am off to the races.
But that isn't becaus vim or emacs lacked an API for completions. The hard part isn't displaying completions, it's figuring out what good completions are.
I want to further bang about on this: This is a plain false statement. Emacs's completion-at-point was (C-h C-f) introduced at 23.2, in May of 2010. company-mode has commits going back to 2009.
That's his point, people use company mode because Emacs doesn't have built-in "modern" completion UI. Completion at point uses the minibuffer, right? If so I wouldn't call it a real alternative, specially without minibuffers plug-ins like ivy and co.
I don't think the Emacs situation is bad at all, but I agree 100% that it needs third party plug-ins to be anything close to what people expect of an editor in 2022.
His point is poorly expressed in that case. Let's look at the quote again.
>Contrast this with Emacs and Vim. They just don’t have proper completion as an editor’s extension point. Rather, they expose low-level cursor and screen manipulation API, and then people implement competing completion frameworks on top of that!
People don't implement competing completion frameworks on top of "low-level cursor and screen manipulation API". There are more high-level APIs included in Emacs, such as completion-at-point.
To quote company-mode's website:
>The CAPF back-end provides a bridge to the standard completion-at-point-functions facility, and thus works with any major mode that defines a proper completion function.
To me the author misrepresents what Emacs has built-in and what package writers use.
Technically company-mode isn't third party, it's part of GNU Emacs. It needs to be downloaded, yes, but it's not third party.
Emacs needs a package recommendation engine (I know VS Code has this, awesome!).
Thanks for the correction! Indeed, I am not super familiar how things work under the hood, I just observed a proliferation of completion frameworks on top!
This was perhaps the case in the very beginning, but everything is switching towards the built-in completion interface as a core, where you can extend both ways: provide elements to complete, or provide ways to perform the completion.
What you get with ivy/company/etc is different ways on how to expand/handle/show completions and they're all still relevant.
I'm using different frontends depending on the mode that I'm using. I personally dislike pop-up style completions. I'm using a mixture of completion buffers (the boring emacs built-in ones) ivy and ido instead.
> I wouldn't call it a real alternative, specially without minibuffers plug-ins like ivy and co.
Why is that? Emacs comes built in with modes like `fido-vertical-mode`, which are arguably more powerful and modern than `company-mode`. They're just not turned on by default.
