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

Find definition of Foo():

  grep -IR "func Foo("

Show uses of Foo():

  grep -IR "Foo("

Hmm, what were the methods in that field again? Open a split pane in Vim and scroll down in the second pane to where the field is defined. Also I pretty much just have the standard libraries of my most commonly used programming languages more or less memorized and keep the docs open in a separate window alongside as well for when I don't. And of course in a sensible language that actually gives you feedback (I'm aware some languages are more or less strict about this and it's not an option for everyone): when I try to build it, it will fail, indicating that I've done something wrong. This is okay, use the build loop and embrace the build errors.

*EDIT:* updating to address "CoPilot" specifically, as I don't think it's the same as the other things on your list. I have reviewed a lot of submissions that were written with various AIs and all of them without fail, this is not hyperboly, all of them were just bad (I'm sure someone will say that if you just use it for a 1 line error tweak it will be fine and what could go wrong there? And sure, probably, but if that's the case you're not getting any benefit from them so that's not what I'm interested in). The code was worse than a human would have written it, there were subtle bugs that no one had noticed because they were trusting the AI, etc. just don't use them. They're not ready, they may be speeding you up, but they're slowing down whomever is reviewing your code. It's a serious disservice.

I somehow just have a significantly large working memory in my head for what I'm trying to do, and then I'll look up a method if I really need it.

Grep, etc to find shit.

Then I dunno, it just kind of works.

In the case of Xcode, I use it, but carefully.

The new "intelligent" autocomplete is annoying AF.

In some cases, it's great. Gives me a suggested function call that exactly meets my needs.

In other cases, not so much.

Here's a [hypothetical, but not really] example:

Say that I declare a property, like so:

    var userWantsMeToCreateWidgets = false

Then, later on, I want to reference that property in a function:

    func seeIfUserWantsWidgets() {
        if userWantsMeToCreateWidgets {
            .
            .
            .
        }
    }

When I start writing the if line, autocomplete invariably suggests something like:

    func seeIfUserWantsWidgets() {
        if *userDoesntWantWidgets* {
            

Where the heck did that come from?

But wait! That's not all!

If I later reference the function call, autocomplete often does this:

    seeIfUserWantsWidgets(*to: .paint*)

WTF???

It will often hallucinate variants of API calls, as well. I have to be careful, when adding delegate functions, because they are completely legit, as far as the compiler and linker go, but will never be called, because their signature is wrong.

But imho it does a disservice to new developers because they rely more on the exploratory aspect. At least that's how I remember it from doing C# in Visual Studio many years ago. You have a general idea of what you want, you type object dot and scroll the auto-complete list to find the method you think you need. And even if you can make it work after fiddling with it for ten, fifteen minutes, you can't be sure that's the best way to do it. And then you never want to go read the docs and learn the mental model and the patterns behind the library or framework. I believe it will only get worse with AI-generated completions.

I'm old. I use vim with no plugins, no LSP, no autocomplete. I use the command line for everything but editing. Works just fine.

Now get off my lawn.