mellery451

6 か月前議論

one topic not mentioned is creating refactoring tools. My sense is that LSPs generally have the advantage here because they have the full parsed tree, but I suspect it would be possible to build simple syntactic refactorings in TS with the potential to be both faster and less sensitive to broken syntax.

mellery451

2 年前議論

agree - what's more, the author is really talking about blaze, where everything "just works" because there are massive dedicated resources maintaining it. He literally admits that he likes the copy-pasta-no-think-about-it:

> Surprisingly, I didn’t need to fiddle with blaze, nor did I have to understand how it worked. I could copy some build targets and edit the dependency list, and the build worked as expected.

Sure, systems that just work are great, until they break.

bazel on the other hand, not so much. Heaven help you if it doesn't support your use-cases - you will wish you had Google to maintain your build.

mellery451

5 年前議論

yes - I use coc + clangd and there is no comparison with cscope. The level of accuracy you get with clangd is significantly better than tags/cscope. The main thing you need to make clangd work properly is an accurate compile DB. Yes, you can general/coarse compile settings, but the accuracy drops off for a project of any size. I also suggesting staying reasonably up-to date with clangd releases since they are adding important features/fixes with each release.

mellery451

5 年前議論

it's also generally preferred because it can avoid certain narrowing conversions in construction: https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines...

mellery451

10 年前議論

looks interesting, but I'd rather have a tool that exposes a data API so that it can be plugged into vim/emacs

コメント