clangd

Pros of llvm-project

• Comprehensive suite of compiler and toolchain technologies
• Broader scope, including multiple programming languages and architectures
• Larger community and more frequent updates

Cons of llvm-project

• More complex and potentially overwhelming for newcomers
• Requires more resources to build and maintain
• May include unnecessary components for those focused solely on C/C++ development

Code Comparison

llvm-project (LLVM IR example):

define i32 @add(i32 %a, i32 %b) {
  %result = add i32 %a, %b
  ret i32 %result
}

clangd (JSON configuration example):

{
  "CompileFlags": {
    "Add": ["-std=c++17", "-Wall"]
  }
}

Summary

llvm-project is a more extensive project encompassing various compiler technologies, while clangd focuses specifically on providing IDE-like features for C/C++ development. llvm-project offers a broader range of tools and supports multiple languages, but it comes with increased complexity. clangd, being more specialized, provides a simpler setup for C/C++ developers seeking intelligent code completion and analysis.

Pros of vscode-cpptools

• More comprehensive C/C++ development features, including debugging and build task integration
• Better integration with Visual Studio Code's ecosystem and UI
• Supports a wider range of compilers and platforms

Cons of vscode-cpptools

• Heavier resource usage compared to clangd
• Configuration can be more complex, especially for non-standard projects
• May have slower indexing and code completion in large codebases

Code comparison

vscode-cpptools (launch.json):

{
    "version": "0.2.0",
    "configurations": [
        {
            "name": "Debug",
            "type": "cppdbg",
            "request": "launch",
            "program": "${workspaceFolder}/a.out"
        }
    ]
}

clangd (compile_commands.json):

[
    {
        "directory": "/path/to/project",
        "command": "clang++ -std=c++17 main.cpp",
        "file": "main.cpp"
    }
]

The code examples show the different configuration approaches: vscode-cpptools uses a launch configuration for debugging, while clangd relies on a compilation database for project-wide analysis.

Pros of cquery

• Faster indexing and query response times for large codebases
• Lower memory usage, especially for projects with many files
• More customizable and configurable for specific project needs

Cons of cquery

• Less actively maintained compared to clangd
• May have fewer features and language support options
• Potentially less stable or reliable for newer C++ standards

Code Comparison

cquery:

void IndexFile::serialize(Writer& writer) const {
  writer.StartObject();
  writer.Key("includes");
  writer.StartArray();
  for (const auto& include : includes)
    include.serialize(writer);
  writer.EndArray();
  // ...
}

clangd:

void IndexFileOut::serialize(llvm::json::OStream &OS) const {
  OS.object([&] {
    OS.attributeArray("includes", [&] {
      for (const auto &Include : Includes)
        Include.serialize(OS);
    });
    // ...
  });
}

Both projects use similar serialization approaches, but clangd leverages LLVM's JSON library for a more concise implementation. cquery's code is more verbose but potentially offers finer control over the serialization process.

Pros of ccls

• Faster indexing and lower memory usage for large projects
• Better support for C++ templates and complex code structures
• More customizable configuration options

Cons of ccls

• Less frequent updates and maintenance compared to clangd
• Smaller community and fewer resources for support
• May require more manual configuration for optimal performance

Code Comparison

ccls configuration example:

{
  "index": {
    "threads": 4,
    "comments": 2,
    "multiVersion": 0
  }
}

clangd configuration example:

CompileFlags:
  Add: [-std=c++17, -Wall]
  Remove: -W*
Index:
  Background: Build

Both projects aim to provide language server capabilities for C/C++/Objective-C, but they have different approaches and trade-offs. ccls tends to offer better performance for large codebases and more advanced C++ features, while clangd benefits from being part of the LLVM project with more frequent updates and broader community support. The choice between the two often depends on specific project requirements and personal preferences.

Pros of CMake

• Widely adopted build system generator with cross-platform support
• Extensive documentation and large community
• Flexible and powerful scripting language for complex build configurations

Cons of CMake

• Steeper learning curve compared to Clangd
• Can be verbose and require more boilerplate code
• Less focused on code completion and IDE integration

Code Comparison

CMake example:

cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.10)
project(MyProject)
add_executable(MyApp main.cpp)
target_link_libraries(MyApp PRIVATE MyLibrary)

Clangd example (compile_commands.json):

[
  {
    "directory": "/path/to/project",
    "command": "clang++ -std=c++17 -c main.cpp -o main.o",
    "file": "main.cpp"
  }
]

CMake is a build system generator that creates platform-specific build files, while Clangd is a language server providing IDE-like features for C/C++ development. CMake offers more flexibility in defining complex build processes, but Clangd excels in providing real-time code analysis and completion. The code examples show CMake's project configuration approach versus Clangd's compilation database format, highlighting their different focuses in the development workflow.

Pros of swift-syntax

• Specifically designed for Swift language parsing and manipulation
• Provides a more intuitive API for working with Swift code structures
• Offers better performance for Swift-specific tasks

Cons of swift-syntax

• Limited to Swift language, unlike clangd's multi-language support
• Smaller community and fewer resources compared to clangd
• Less mature and potentially less stable than clangd

Code Comparison

swift-syntax:

import SwiftSyntax

let sourceFile = try SyntaxParser.parse(source: "let x = 5")
let variable = sourceFile.statements.first?.item.as(VariableDeclSyntax.self)
print(variable?.bindings.first?.pattern)

clangd:

#include "clang/AST/ASTConsumer.h"
#include "clang/Frontend/CompilerInstance.h"

class MyASTConsumer : public clang::ASTConsumer {
  void HandleTranslationUnit(clang::ASTContext &Context) override {
    // Process the AST here
  }
};

Summary

swift-syntax is tailored for Swift development, offering a more specialized and potentially more efficient solution for Swift-specific tasks. However, clangd provides broader language support and a more established ecosystem. The choice between the two depends on the specific project requirements and the primary programming language used.