Pros of vscode

• More user-friendly interface, especially for beginners
• Extensive marketplace with a wide range of extensions
• Built-in Git integration and debugging tools

Cons of vscode

• Heavier resource usage compared to Emacs
• Less customizable than Emacs, which offers more flexibility
• Slower startup time, especially with many extensions installed

Code comparison

lsp-mode (Emacs):

(use-package lsp-mode
  :commands (lsp lsp-deferred)
  :init
  (setq lsp-keymap-prefix "C-c l")
  :config
  (lsp-enable-which-key-integration t))

vscode (settings.json):

{
  "editor.suggestSelection": "first",
  "vsintellicode.modify.editor.suggestSelection": "automaticallyOverrodeDefaultValue",
  "editor.formatOnSave": true,
  "files.autoSave": "afterDelay"
}

Both lsp-mode and vscode provide Language Server Protocol (LSP) support, enabling advanced IDE-like features across various programming languages. While lsp-mode offers deep integration with Emacs and its ecosystem, vscode provides a more accessible and feature-rich environment out of the box. The choice between them often depends on personal preference, workflow requirements, and familiarity with Emacs or modern GUI-based editors.

Pros of neovim

• Built-in LSP client, reducing the need for external plugins
• Faster startup time and overall performance
• More active development and larger community

Cons of neovim

• Steeper learning curve for users transitioning from traditional Vim
• Less extensive ecosystem of plugins compared to Emacs

Code Comparison

lsp-mode (Emacs):

(use-package lsp-mode
  :commands (lsp lsp-deferred)
  :init
  (setq lsp-keymap-prefix "C-c l")
  :config
  (lsp-enable-which-key-integration t))

neovim (Lua):

require'lspconfig'.pyright.setup{}
vim.api.nvim_set_keymap('n', '<space>e', '<cmd>lua vim.diagnostic.open_float()<CR>', opts)
vim.api.nvim_set_keymap('n', '[d', '<cmd>lua vim.diagnostic.goto_prev()<CR>', opts)
vim.api.nvim_set_keymap('n', ']d', '<cmd>lua vim.diagnostic.goto_next()<CR>', opts)
vim.api.nvim_set_keymap('n', '<space>q', '<cmd>lua vim.diagnostic.setloclist()<CR>', opts)

While lsp-mode requires additional configuration and package management, neovim's built-in LSP client allows for more straightforward setup. However, lsp-mode offers more extensive customization options and integration with other Emacs packages. Neovim's approach is more lightweight and performance-oriented, while lsp-mode provides a more comprehensive feature set within the Emacs ecosystem.

Pros of vim

• Lightweight and fast, with minimal system resources required
• Extensive plugin ecosystem with a large community of contributors
• Highly customizable with a powerful scripting language (Vimscript)

Cons of vim

• Steeper learning curve for beginners due to modal editing
• Less integrated language server protocol (LSP) support out of the box
• Configuration can be more complex and time-consuming

Code comparison

vim:

" Basic LSP setup in vim
let g:lsp_diagnostics_enabled = 1
let g:lsp_signs_enabled = 1
let g:lsp_diagnostics_echo_cursor = 1

lsp-mode:

;; Basic LSP setup in Emacs
(use-package lsp-mode
  :hook (prog-mode . lsp-deferred)
  :commands lsp)

Summary

vim is a lightweight, highly customizable text editor with a large plugin ecosystem. It offers excellent performance and flexibility but may require more setup for advanced features like LSP integration. lsp-mode, on the other hand, provides a more seamless LSP experience out of the box for Emacs users, with easier configuration and integration. The choice between the two largely depends on personal preference, existing editor familiarity, and specific project requirements.

Pros of eglot

• Lightweight and minimalistic approach, with a smaller codebase
• Built-in support in Emacs 29+, reducing external dependencies
• Simpler configuration and setup process

Cons of eglot

• Fewer customization options compared to lsp-mode
• Limited support for some advanced LSP features
• Smaller ecosystem of extensions and integrations

Code Comparison

eglot configuration:

(use-package eglot
  :hook ((python-mode . eglot-ensure)
         (rust-mode . eglot-ensure))
  :config
  (add-to-list 'eglot-server-programs '(rust-mode . ("rust-analyzer"))))

lsp-mode configuration:

(use-package lsp-mode
  :hook ((python-mode . lsp)
         (rust-mode . lsp))
  :config
  (setq lsp-rust-server 'rust-analyzer)
  (setq lsp-enable-symbol-highlighting t)
  (setq lsp-enable-on-type-formatting t))

Both eglot and lsp-mode are popular choices for integrating Language Server Protocol (LSP) support in Emacs. eglot offers a more streamlined experience with its lightweight approach and built-in support in newer Emacs versions. However, lsp-mode provides more extensive customization options and a broader range of features for power users. The choice between the two often depends on personal preferences and specific requirements for LSP integration in Emacs.

Pros of vim-lsp

• Lightweight and faster performance, especially for larger projects
• Easier integration with existing Vim plugins and workflows
• More flexible configuration options for custom language servers

Cons of vim-lsp

• Smaller community and fewer contributors compared to lsp-mode
• Less comprehensive documentation and fewer examples available
• Fewer built-in features and integrations out of the box

Code Comparison

vim-lsp configuration:

let g:lsp_settings = {
    \ 'pyls': {'workspace_config': {'pyls': {'plugins': {'pycodestyle': {'enabled': v:false}}}}},
    \ }

lsp-mode configuration:

(use-package lsp-mode
  :hook ((python-mode . lsp))
  :config
  (setq lsp-pyls-plugins-pycodestyle-enabled nil))

Both examples disable pycodestyle in the Python language server, but lsp-mode uses a more declarative approach with use-package integration.