Cquery: highly-scalable, low-latency language server for C++ • Hacker News Board

Re: Cquery: highly-scalable, low-latency language server for C++

#71

Post by sient » Sun, Nov 19, 2017, 6:35 AM UTC

chillee wrote: post #70

sient wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A killer feature of rtags me is its ability to run server on remote machine (of course source code must be mirrored too). I have a similar use case in mind, so I'm planning on trying to get this working by writing a simple script that proxies language server messages over SSH/TCP. Ideally it should work with any language server. > Regarding indexing time, all of these tools seem to parse source code using either li…

> I have a similar use case in mind, so I'm planning on trying to get this working by writing a simple script that proxies language server messages over SSH/TCP. Ideally it should work with any language server. I think I know at least 2 efforts to do this by now. One at Facebook with Nuclide, and I believe VS Live Share does something similar. I think it's an idea whose time has come, so I think it's pretty cool that…

I'm happy with whatever works, but what I have in mind is very simple so I don't expect it to take a lot of engineering time :)

Re: Cquery: highly-scalable, low-latency language server for C++

#72

Post by pjmlp » Sun, Nov 19, 2017, 8:52 AM UTC

lispm wrote: post #67

pjmlp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It existed, but sadly both were too early for the market. The first one was from Lucid, after pivoting away from Lisp Machines. https://www.dreamsongs.com/Cadillac.html Here is a demo on YouTube. https://youtu.be/pQQTScuApWk IBM also tried to create a Smalltalk style repository in Visual Age for C++ v4.0, which has quite resource hungry for mid-90's PCs. So we had to wait until the idea of compiler as library to catc…

I think I mentioned that before, Lucid as a company has never done anything with Lisp Machines. Their target market was Unix and various UNIX platforms. What they were famous for was Lucid CL as a very high quality implementation/compiler/runtime of Common Lisp for UNIX. They sold licenses to various companies (like IBM, DEC, SUN, ...), which sold it under their brand with their enhancements. Lucid CL was used for ap…

Thanks for clarifying it.

Still if such products had been successful earlier, most likely our C++ IDEs would be much joyful to use even without plugging into clang.

It always feels so many products have been a market failure just because people weren't yet ready for them. Only to have others 10, 20 years later to conquer exactly the same market.

Re: Cquery: highly-scalable, low-latency language server for C++

#73

Post by mmjaa » Sun, Nov 19, 2017, 8:40 PM UTC

yalph wrote: post #49

Use c++ on a daily basis. I think the direction the language is going is really really troublesome. It was a mistake to follow the boost’s lead. At this point language is more or less a clusterfuck. While python peeps are saving the world here on this dark side of the world we wrestle with move semantics. Simplicity and beauty of C is long gone.

>> Simplicity and beauty of C is long gone.

Lives on in Lua. Everything I want to do in C++, I can do with Lua instead. Plus: still C under it all.

Re: Cquery: highly-scalable, low-latency language server for C++

#74

Post by lispm » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 3:14 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #72

lispm wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I mentioned that before, Lucid as a company has never done anything with Lisp Machines. Their target market was Unix and various UNIX platforms. What they were famous for was Lucid CL as a very high quality implementation/compiler/runtime of Common Lisp for UNIX. They sold licenses to various companies (like IBM, DEC, SUN, ...), which sold it under their brand with their enhancements. Lucid CL was used for ap…

Thanks for clarifying it. Still if such products had been successful earlier, most likely our C++ IDEs would be much joyful to use even without plugging into clang. It always feels so many products have been a market failure just because people weren't yet ready for them. Only to have others 10, 20 years later to conquer exactly the same market.

Prices of Energize IDE in 1992:

Single user: $5425 Five users: $2975 each Ten users: $3250 each

A single Energize C++ compiler was slightly more than $1000.

On top of that Energize was a relatively complex piece of software. Probably it would also have been a good idea to have a capable UNIX desktop machine, which even in 1992 wasn't that cheap.

The whole thing was aimed at professional C++ programmers in a relatively limited market of 'mission critical applications'.