I don’t understand the complaint of “subpar IDE support”.
It has the best IDE support of any language I’ve tried. It’s IDE support is also just a language server, which you can just download in your editor of choice and it just works. Are the people that complain about it not using rust-analyzer?
Tbf less than 15% said it was a problem and the others is either “it’s good” or “could be better”. I definitely still have a few grievances with rust-analyzer, it could be better.
Sure, any software could be better. The question is, is it useful as-is and how does it compare to other language tooling? Is it fine, or do we need to really focus on getting it up to par?
Definitely useful and I think it compares pretty well to other tooling? My two biggest issues are compile times and “amnesia”. First of all, compile times because the feedback cycle can get really bad. But that’s not really rust-analyzer’s fault, that’s cargo/rustc.
But rust-analyzer also has this weird “amnesia”. Like if I have ran the checks and everything is good, I can go to definition and it will instantly bring me there. But if I make a small change and it starts running cargo check, it’s like it forgets everything until it’s done with cargo check. I wish it still allowed me to use what it knew before and go to definitions and give suggestions and such.
Yeah, rust-analyzer has been perfectly fine for me as well, though I honestly don’t expect a ton from my editor.
weird “amnesia”
Ah, while it’s processing everything again. My project is pretty small and my computer is pretty fast, so I guess I haven’t noticed. I also don’t use a ton of its features, because I tend to already know where things are.
I don’t understand the complaint of “subpar IDE support”.
It has the best IDE support of any language I’ve tried. It’s IDE support is also just a language server, which you can just download in your editor of choice and it just works. Are the people that complain about it not using rust-analyzer?
Also there is RustRover
Definitely not the best - Java and Dart are waaay ahead.
But it’s pretty good. Better than C++ and Python.
My main issue with it is the speed. Rust-analyzer is ridiculous resource intensive.
Tbf less than 15% said it was a problem and the others is either “it’s good” or “could be better”. I definitely still have a few grievances with rust-analyzer, it could be better.
Sure, any software could be better. The question is, is it useful as-is and how does it compare to other language tooling? Is it fine, or do we need to really focus on getting it up to par?
Definitely useful and I think it compares pretty well to other tooling? My two biggest issues are compile times and “amnesia”. First of all, compile times because the feedback cycle can get really bad. But that’s not really rust-analyzer’s fault, that’s cargo/rustc.
But rust-analyzer also has this weird “amnesia”. Like if I have ran the checks and everything is good, I can go to definition and it will instantly bring me there. But if I make a small change and it starts running
cargo check, it’s like it forgets everything until it’s done withcargo check. I wish it still allowed me to use what it knew before and go to definitions and give suggestions and such.Yeah,
rust-analyzerhas been perfectly fine for me as well, though I honestly don’t expect a ton from my editor.Ah, while it’s processing everything again. My project is pretty small and my computer is pretty fast, so I guess I haven’t noticed. I also don’t use a ton of its features, because I tend to already know where things are.
It’s definitely not a problem in my own projects, but at work is a different story. With a huge project, compile times becomes a real slog.