> It can use very little memory (target We live in a strange world.
Rust Glancer: Rust LSP using 100x less RAM
51–60 of 129 posts
Re: Rust Glancer: Rust LSP using 100x less RAM
#52wonderful IDEA! Often two much ram cost using nvim with LSP, it may be work! Forking it!
Hostile fork!
Re: Rust Glancer: Rust LSP using 100x less RAM
#53While I respect the work behind rust-analyzer greatly and think it's a good part of how cool the language is, I will NEVER understand the design decision to flat out refuse using disk cache. I understand the argument that implementing this puts less pressure behind speeding up the indexing process, but honestly with the price of ram today I'm tired of the memory and cpu usage each rust-analyzer process takes up. Espe…
I can shed some light here! This is going to be longish comment, but hopefully by the end of it you should understand _why_ we decided to avoid using the disk initially, even if you don't agree with that decision. Historically, the decision to not use disk traces back to this comment https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1317#issuecomment-150... , which is perhaps the single GitHub comment that influenced my life mo…
[flagged]
Re: Rust Glancer: Rust LSP using 100x less RAM
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can shed some light here! This is going to be longish comment, but hopefully by the end of it you should understand _why_ we decided to avoid using the disk initially, even if you don't agree with that decision. Historically, the decision to not use disk traces back to this comment https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1317#issuecomment-150... , which is perhaps the single GitHub comment that influenced my life mo…
[flagged]
The goal always was to refactor rustc to make compiler-based LSP feasible. The idea of original RLS, "we'll just use the compiler", is fundamentally sound. It's just that you'll need to turn the compiler sideways to achieve that, which is a hard work to motivate without having a real example demonstrating the benefits (or having political clout in the project to just mandate that ^^)
Re: Rust Glancer: Rust LSP using 100x less RAM
#55I personally don’t agree with “LLMs are just a tool” but I’m honestly impressed by the author’s description of LLM usage and taking the responsibility for the code. IMHO, without having looked at the code base itself, this sounds like a pretty healthy way to approach LLM usage!
Re: Rust Glancer: Rust LSP using 100x less RAM
#56Will give it a shot and loved the "LLMs were used as a tool, not as a brain replacement"
Re: Rust Glancer: Rust LSP using 100x less RAM
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The goal always was to refactor rustc to make compiler-based LSP feasible. The idea of original RLS, "we'll just use the compiler", is fundamentally sound. It's just that you'll need to turn the compiler sideways to achieve that, which is a hard work to motivate without having a real example demonstrating the benefits (or having political clout in the project to just mandate that ^^)
[flagged]
Re: Rust Glancer: Rust LSP using 100x less RAM
#58[dead]
Re: Rust Glancer: Rust LSP using 100x less RAM
#59Hey! Author here. Happy to answer any questions.
Pretty cool! rust-analyzer takes such a huge amount of memory. Usually it’s not a problem but occasionally I’ve run into issues. Having an alternative, even with tradeoffs, is great.
Re: Rust Glancer: Rust LSP using 100x less RAM
#60I personally don’t agree with “LLMs are just a tool” but I’m honestly impressed by the author’s description of LLM usage and taking the responsibility for the code. IMHO, without having looked at the code base itself, this sounds like a pretty healthy way to approach LLM usage!
"I personally don’t agree with “LLMs are just a tool”"
Then what are they?