Pros of coc.nvim

• Supports a wider range of programming languages and file types
• Offers more advanced features like code actions, refactoring, and diagnostics
• Integrates seamlessly with Language Server Protocol (LSP)

Cons of coc.nvim

• Heavier resource usage, potentially slower on older machines
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex configuration options
• Requires Node.js as a dependency

Code Comparison

coc.nvim configuration example:

let g:coc_global_extensions = ['coc-json', 'coc-tsserver']
inoremap <silent><expr> <TAB>
      \ pumvisible() ? "\<C-n>" :
      \ <SID>check_back_space() ? "\<TAB>" :
      \ coc#refresh()

deoplete.nvim configuration example:

let g:deoplete#enable_at_startup = 1
inoremap <expr><TAB> pumvisible() ? "\<C-n>" : "\<TAB>"

Both plugins aim to provide autocompletion for Neovim, but coc.nvim offers a more comprehensive feature set with LSP integration, while deoplete.nvim focuses on lightweight, fast autocompletion. The choice between them depends on the user's specific needs and system capabilities.

Pros of nvim-cmp

• Built-in support for LSP completions
• Highly customizable with a modular architecture
• Faster performance, especially with large codebases

Cons of nvim-cmp

• Steeper learning curve for configuration
• Requires more manual setup compared to deoplete

Code Comparison

nvim-cmp configuration:

require('cmp').setup({
  sources = {
    { name = 'nvim_lsp' },
    { name = 'buffer' },
  },
})

deoplete configuration:

let g:deoplete#enable_at_startup = 1
call deoplete#custom#option('sources', {
\ '_': ['buffer'],
\ 'cpp': ['buffer', 'tag'],
\})

Summary

nvim-cmp offers more advanced features and better performance, particularly for LSP-based completions. It provides greater flexibility but requires more setup. deoplete is easier to configure out of the box but may not offer the same level of customization or performance for complex workflows. The choice between the two depends on the user's needs and willingness to invest time in configuration.

Pros of YouCompleteMe

• More comprehensive language support out of the box
• Semantic completion for C-family languages
• Integrates with external tools for enhanced functionality

Cons of YouCompleteMe

• Heavier and more complex setup process
• Requires compilation and external dependencies
• Can be resource-intensive, especially on older hardware

Code Comparison

YouCompleteMe configuration:

let g:ycm_auto_trigger = 1
let g:ycm_min_num_of_chars_for_completion = 2
let g:ycm_complete_in_comments = 1

deoplete.nvim configuration:

let g:deoplete#enable_at_startup = 1
call deoplete#custom#option('auto_complete_delay', 200)
call deoplete#custom#option('smart_case', v:true)

YouCompleteMe offers more granular control over completion behavior, while deoplete.nvim focuses on simplicity and ease of configuration. YouCompleteMe's semantic completion provides more accurate results for supported languages, but deoplete.nvim's modular approach allows for easier extension and customization.

Both plugins aim to provide efficient autocompletion, but they cater to different user preferences and requirements. YouCompleteMe is better suited for users who need advanced features and are willing to invest time in setup, while deoplete.nvim is ideal for those who prefer a lightweight, easily configurable solution.

Pros of vim-lsp

• Lightweight and focused solely on Language Server Protocol (LSP) integration
• Supports a wide range of language servers out of the box
• Easy to configure and extend with custom language servers

Cons of vim-lsp

• Requires additional plugins for autocompletion functionality
• May have a steeper learning curve for users new to LSP concepts
• Less extensive ecosystem compared to deoplete.nvim

Code Comparison

vim-lsp configuration:

let g:lsp_signs_enabled = 1
let g:lsp_diagnostics_echo_cursor = 1
let g:lsp_text_edit_enabled = 1

if executable('pyls')
    au User lsp_setup call lsp#register_server({
        \ 'name': 'pyls',
        \ 'cmd': {server_info->['pyls']},
        \ 'whitelist': ['python'],
        \ })
endif

deoplete.nvim configuration:

let g:deoplete#enable_at_startup = 1
call deoplete#custom#option('sources', {
\ '_': ['buffer', 'file', 'neosnippet'],
\ 'python': ['jedi'],
\})

While vim-lsp focuses on LSP integration, deoplete.nvim provides a more comprehensive autocompletion framework with various sources. vim-lsp requires more explicit configuration for language servers, whereas deoplete.nvim offers a broader range of completion sources out of the box.