unofficial mirror of emacs-devel@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Mario Lang <mlang@blind.guru>
To: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Subject: lsp and Haskell
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 10:36:47 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <874klx4kpc.fsf@blind.guru> (raw)

Hi.

I recently gave lsp based development a try in Emacs.
As I am doing Haskell, I am using haskell-language-server[1].
It appears to only work nicely with emacs-lsp[2].

Question: Are their ongoing efforts to support HLS with eglot?
While eglot being simple is probably a good thing, I am wondering if
going for simplicity is the best way to get broad IDE support via lsp.

HLS with lsp-haskell does really work pretty nicely.
It supports code actions, which puts a lot of cleanup magic at your
fingertips.  It also does code formatting and of course completion and M-.

I am posting this fully aware that some packages have a hard time
being installable by default in Emacs.  I usually dont care much.
However, in this case, I believe stock Emacs should make it easier to
get IDE support.  I shouldn't need to fiddle with elisp, configuring an
"alternative app store" to get IDE support for $language.
At least that would be my wish.
Besides, something was slightly off when I put melpa into
package-archives.  I managed to install the three packages I needed, but
after I did so, they vanished from the package list.  After a restart of
Emacs, I now have lsp-ui and lsp-haskell marked as installed, but
lsp-mode is marked as "available" but it is installed in
~/.config/emacs/elpa.
I haven't tried to figure out what is going on here.
My point is that having to activate melpa to get IDE support for
$language seems to expose weird behaviour, which only helps to alienate
people who are newcomers trying to use Emacs as an IDE.

As I understand it, we currently require copyright assignment for every
extra package we make available by default.  Putting rules in place is
likely a good idea, but is this one rule really helping Emacs?
It feels a bit harsh.  I totally understand that we require assignments
for everything that goes into core Emacs.  But third party packages?
Really?
If I am not misunderstanding this, what is the actual rationale behind it?

[1] https://github.com/haskell/haskell-language-server
[2] https://github.com/emacs-lsp/
    https://github.com/emacs-lsp/lsp-haskell
-- 
CYa,
  ⡍⠁⠗⠊⠕



             reply	other threads:[~2020-11-10  9:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-10  9:36 Mario Lang [this message]
2020-11-10 10:47 ` lsp and Haskell Eli Zaretskii
2020-11-10 12:50 ` Andrii Kolomoiets
2020-11-10 13:39 ` Stefan Monnier
2020-11-10 13:55   ` Mario Lang

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=874klx4kpc.fsf@blind.guru \
    --to=mlang@blind.guru \
    --cc=emacs-devel@gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).