> That's the situation so far, but I see this changing thanks to the language server protocol
It’s really interesting how LSP shifts what I’ll call “Visual Studio only features” into all editors, while at the same time you had Microsoft being the ones who initially pushed for LSP-adoption.
I wonder how many internal discussions they had on this subject before saying “Go”.
It’s a fantastic initiative and I’m glad it’s there for me, in my Emacs today.
LSP is fine and all, but as a one-size-fits-all protocol I'm guessing it will never reach the level of flexibility and extensibility required to implement something like IDEA/Rider level refactorings, hints, and the general level of "code understanding" by the editor. It's a bit hard to explain, but JetBrains' IDEs really feel like they understand your code. It feels more like editing an engineering diagram, or tinkering with a mechanical contraption, and less like editing free-form text (which code is definitely not). That's how it should be, I believe.
Visual Studio-like IDEs are a dead end. There is little revenue opportunity in them and a huge downside in losing relevance in the overall developer mindshare.
How many of us would be using a Microsoft IDE/text editor if it were not for VS Code?
So, you propose to give up on Visual Studio because in 20 or so years maybe Windows and XBox won’t exist? Or?...
Also, speaking of IDEs. There are also Jetbrains’ IDEs and XCode. Can’t speak for XCode, but IDEA offers capabilities that Emacs can’t even begin to approach.
It’s really interesting how LSP shifts what I’ll call “Visual Studio only features” into all editors, while at the same time you had Microsoft being the ones who initially pushed for LSP-adoption.
I wonder how many internal discussions they had on this subject before saying “Go”.
It’s a fantastic initiative and I’m glad it’s there for me, in my Emacs today.