Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Programmers who don't use autocomplete/LSP, how do you do it?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 652 posts

Re: Ask HN: Programmers who don't use autocomplete/LSP, how do you do it?

#181

Post by gotts »

vq wrote: post #178

I work almost exclusively in Emacs without the modern LSP-based tools. I believe I do keep more in my head than programmers that use more advanced IDEs. In code I have control over myself I avoid imports that doesn't enumerate all imported symbols. That is I always use the import Library (symbol) syntax in Haskell and never do wildcard import in Python. When coding C I sometimes use tags so that I can go to definitio…

> I work almost exclusively in Emacs without the modern LSP-based tools

I'm wondering how many people in the comments would misinterpret it as "Emacs is outdated"/"Emacs does not have modern LSP-based tools"

Re: Ask HN: Programmers who don't use autocomplete/LSP, how do you do it?

#182

Post by seanmcdirmid »

knorker wrote: post #175

Can you drive a car with manual transmission? If you can, then do you feel helped by automatic transmission? I don't. I feel like too often the automatic transmission makes the wrong choice. It doesn't feel like more work at all, and allows for much better control of engine braking. (You shouldn't be using your other hand to hold anything while driving anyway)

I moved to an EV from an automatic transmission, and I’m pretty much used to one pedal driving now (using regen to slow down and stop most of the time). No gears at all took awhile to get used to, but now it just seems a better way to drive.

Manual transmissions get a bit stressful on steep hills, and so I don’t really miss them much accordingly.

Re: Ask HN: Programmers who don't use autocomplete/LSP, how do you do it?

#183

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

thwarted wrote: post #125
PittleyDunkin wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it never really occurs to us to use them, just like it never occurs to you to not use them. This doesn't really make sense, either. How do you not consider the right tool for the job? Do you just use whatever you learned to code and never really bothered to consider that you might be more or less productive with different tools? LSPs don't always offer a productivity increase in all contexts—they seem to be mostly…

My great-grandmother never used a mixer when making cakes or bread, long after mixers were available, and she was able to pump out treats and full meals without batting an eye, the best anyone ever had. I don't have a problem with my "productivity", whatever that means. I'm not trying to write code faster, my own experience is that writing code faster leads to shitter code. I'm not hindered by my tools, and most of m…

> I'm not trying to write code faster, my own experience is that writing code faster leads to shitter code.

I'm wondering who these programmers are who are sitting down for eight hours a day, pumping out perfect code at 200wpm without any breaks. I suspect they might not exist.

Re: Ask HN: Programmers who don't use autocomplete/LSP, how do you do it?

#184

Post by brabel »

daltonpinto wrote: post #99

This question reminds me of the first time I met a blind programmer. I asked him how he managed to code, and he replied with something that stayed with me: a good programmer should organize software in such a way that every piece of code has a clear and logical place. The organization should be so intuitive that anyone could build a mental model of the structure and navigate it easily, even without seeing it. It felt…

> Not only do I avoid using LSP features, but I’m also opposed to their use. While they can help with navigation, they may prevent developers from experiencing and addressing the underlying structural issues in their code.

LSP by itself will not prevent anything. LSP (using the terminology from OP, but any IDE really) is just a tool like any other which allows you to do things faster. It doesn't matter how organized your code base is, it will never be as fast to find some definition as hitting a keyboard shortcut (please don't use Ctrl+Click, my gosh... learn the keyboard shortcut for things you do often like this). I want to see docs for a function without moving my eyes from the code I am currently writing. I want to be able to jump back and forth between definitions without interrupting my chain of thought, see function definitions inline instead of having to jump to the file it's defined on.

When you have to manually search for files and then Ctrl+F to find functions, lookup docs in a web browser (which I hear is how people who don't use IDEs still do that), or manually run a linter/compiler to see warnings in your code, you're just being really inefficient. I can't understand that at all. Why don't you use automation to help your job when the whole point of your job is automation?

Keeping the code organized is still good advice, but has nothing to do with using an IDE.

Re: Ask HN: Programmers who don't use autocomplete/LSP, how do you do it?

#185

Post by jgb1984 »

Been using Debian and vim for almost 25 years now. Tried many IDE's but they're distracting, bloated and slow.

My main language is python and for that I use jedi-vim (which allows me to jump to a definition), fzf with ripgrep to easily open files and search for specific things, and ALE that runs ruff formatting and linting. Tmux to keep my terminals organized and openbox to make it stylish and stay out of the way.

No LSP, no autocomplete, and sure as hell no AI nonsense.

Re: Ask HN: Programmers who don't use autocomplete/LSP, how do you do it?

#186

Post by ggggggreat »

jgb1984 wrote: post #185

Been using Debian and vim for almost 25 years now. Tried many IDE's but they're distracting, bloated and slow. My main language is python and for that I use jedi-vim (which allows me to jump to a definition), fzf with ripgrep to easily open files and search for specific things, and ALE that runs ruff formatting and linting. Tmux to keep my terminals organized and openbox to make it stylish and stay out of the way. No…

> and sure as hell no AI nonsense.

You're emotionally invested. Not wise.

Re: Ask HN: Programmers who don't use autocomplete/LSP, how do you do it?

#187

Post by pas »

devjab wrote: post #141
thwarted wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know about VSCode's terminal, and the few times I've used it seems like an afterthought, bolted on, to the primary function of the program as an editor and file navigator . I don't live in the editor. I live in the shell. The editor is a sub function of living in the shell.

I actually think the VSC terminal is one of the few saving graces it has. Maybe not so much on *nix. It works well enough on Mac, but it really shines on Windows where you’ll have a much easier time running powershell, GitShell and WSL terminals within VSC than outside of it. It also has really good integration with the various Azure CLI tools. I don’t think VSC is a very good IDE though. I have no idea why a Vim use…

on windows VSCode is a great way to remote into a VM with with a sane-er OS.

Re: Ask HN: Programmers who don't use autocomplete/LSP, how do you do it?

#188

Post by Scarblac »

gotts wrote: post #181
vq wrote: post #178

I work almost exclusively in Emacs without the modern LSP-based tools. I believe I do keep more in my head than programmers that use more advanced IDEs. In code I have control over myself I avoid imports that doesn't enumerate all imported symbols. That is I always use the import Library (symbol) syntax in Haskell and never do wildcard import in Python. When coding C I sometimes use tags so that I can go to definitio…

> I work almost exclusively in Emacs without the modern LSP-based tools I'm wondering how many people in the comments would misinterpret it as "Emacs is outdated"/"Emacs does not have modern LSP-based tools"

I was about to switch from Emacs when I found TIDE for Typescript development (which is what I do), and it kept me in Emacs for years longer.

Recently though I couldn't resist experimenting with Copilot and I switched to VS code for it, after 32 years. Is there a good Emacs module for it by now?

Re: Ask HN: Programmers who don't use autocomplete/LSP, how do you do it?

#189

Post by bdhcuidbebe »

nforgerit wrote: post #172
jve wrote: post #162

Wow, surprised I look like living in a different world, enjoying when documentation pops up as I type. So surprised that many people don"t like Intellisense stuff.

Think of it as people who feel more frustrated than other by being interrupted in their thinking process. From my anecdotal evidence I think one can map different psychological spectrums like ADHD or autism to them liking or disliking such tools that "pop up".

I agree, but just turn hover popups etc off in vscode settings?

But yeah, oh my is vscode noisy!

Re: Ask HN: Programmers who don't use autocomplete/LSP, how do you do it?

#190

Post by brabel »

gotts wrote: post #181
vq wrote: post #178

I work almost exclusively in Emacs without the modern LSP-based tools. I believe I do keep more in my head than programmers that use more advanced IDEs. In code I have control over myself I avoid imports that doesn't enumerate all imported symbols. That is I always use the import Library (symbol) syntax in Haskell and never do wildcard import in Python. When coding C I sometimes use tags so that I can go to definitio…

> I work almost exclusively in Emacs without the modern LSP-based tools I'm wondering how many people in the comments would misinterpret it as "Emacs is outdated"/"Emacs does not have modern LSP-based tools"

But that's bullshit. emacs has had most of the tools that LSP enables, it just had that only for some languages that had better emacs modes (C, elisp, Common Lisp etc.). All LSP is doing is making it easier to write modes for new languages really. emacs with eglot (not the LSP modes which are generally terrible) is a great IDE, and does thing the emacs way. Saying you use emacs but don't like "LSP" feels like a joke to me. The very reason SLIME was so great decades before IDEs became mainstream was that it was already a powerful IDE, it just does the IDE things a bit different than you're probably used to.
Post reply on HN