61–70 of 129 posts
I 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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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]
While 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…
rust-analyzer taking 2GiB of RAM per instance definitely hurts. And I agree that efforts to reduce this are noble and warranted, but I worry about what doesn’t happen because of those optimisations. The rust tooling is just so-so good (and a better argument for the language than memory safety imo), so I support more efforts to be ergonomic over memory optimisation. Even though rust-analyzer is often the largest memor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Super cool! In the comparison table, you indicate indexing times. Could you also measure memory usage, since that's the stated goal of the project?
I will work on creating a more or less fair benchmark soon-ish, but right now the initial indexing typically consumes more RAM than rust analyzer does, but not awfully so. The difference, however, is that with Rust Glancer you don’t need full reindexing often, so it probably compensates for that to a degree.
While 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will work on creating a more or less fair benchmark soon-ish, but right now the initial indexing typically consumes more RAM than rust analyzer does, but not awfully so. The difference, however, is that with Rust Glancer you don’t need full reindexing often, so it probably compensates for that to a degree.
Oh, if peak RAM usage is higher, in which scenario do you find that's a significant gain? Maybe I misunderstood, what I got from the blog post is that there will be indexing on save (vs on each keystroke with RA). That would be often enough that lower RAM enough in between would not be of much gain. Is that only an incremental indexing with normally low RAM usage? So you would essentially fully index only once per pr…
But importantly it’s not reindexing the entire project, which is the expensive operation. So you have higher peak RAM when opening a brand new project, but much lower RAM usage while working on the project.
While 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…
rust-analyzer taking 2GiB of RAM per instance definitely hurts. And I agree that efforts to reduce this are noble and warranted, but I worry about what doesn’t happen because of those optimisations. The rust tooling is just so-so good (and a better argument for the language than memory safety imo), so I support more efforts to be ergonomic over memory optimisation. Even though rust-analyzer is often the largest memor…