Pros of coq_nvim

• Faster completion due to native implementation in Python
• More extensive fuzzy matching capabilities
• Built-in snippets engine with LSP integration

Cons of coq_nvim

• Steeper learning curve and more complex configuration
• Less community support and fewer extensions compared to nvim-cmp
• May have compatibility issues with some Neovim plugins

Code Comparison

coq_nvim configuration:

vim.g.coq_settings = {
  auto_start = 'shut-up',
  keymap = { recommended = false },
  clients = { tabnine = { enabled = true } }
}

nvim-cmp configuration:

require('cmp').setup({
  sources = {{ name = 'nvim_lsp' }, { name = 'buffer' }},
  mapping = cmp.mapping.preset.insert({
    ['<C-b>'] = cmp.mapping.scroll_docs(-4),
    ['<C-f>'] = cmp.mapping.scroll_docs(4),
  }),
})

Both nvim-cmp and coq_nvim are popular autocompletion plugins for Neovim. nvim-cmp offers a more modular approach with extensive customization options and broader plugin ecosystem support. coq_nvim, on the other hand, provides faster completion and more advanced fuzzy matching out of the box. The choice between them depends on individual preferences for speed, customization, and integration with other Neovim plugins.

Pros of coc.nvim

• More mature and stable project with a larger user base
• Extensive language server protocol (LSP) support out of the box
• Easier setup for beginners with pre-configured language servers

Cons of coc.nvim

• Heavier resource usage due to Node.js dependency
• Slower startup time compared to nvim-cmp
• Less customizable and modular than nvim-cmp

Code Comparison

coc.nvim configuration:

vim.g.coc_global_extensions = {
  'coc-json',
  'coc-tsserver',
  'coc-eslint',
  'coc-prettier'
}

nvim-cmp configuration:

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

coc.nvim offers a more straightforward setup with global extensions, while nvim-cmp provides a more modular approach with customizable sources. nvim-cmp requires additional setup for LSP integration, but offers greater flexibility in configuration.

Both plugins provide excellent autocompletion capabilities, but coc.nvim is more beginner-friendly with its pre-configured language servers, while nvim-cmp offers better performance and customization options for advanced users.

Pros of deoplete.nvim

• Mature and stable project with a long history of development
• Extensive plugin ecosystem and community support
• Supports both Vim and Neovim

Cons of deoplete.nvim

• Written in Python, which can lead to slower performance compared to Lua-based alternatives
• Less active development and updates in recent years
• Configuration can be more complex for advanced setups

Code Comparison

deoplete.nvim configuration:

call deoplete#custom#option('sources', {
    \ '_': ['buffer', 'file'],
    \ 'cpp': ['buffer', 'tag', 'file']
\})

nvim-cmp configuration:

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

Both plugins offer powerful completion capabilities, but nvim-cmp is generally considered more modern and performant due to its Lua implementation. It also integrates more seamlessly with Neovim's built-in LSP client. However, deoplete.nvim still has a strong user base and may be preferred by those who need Vim compatibility or are already familiar with its ecosystem.

Pros of vim-lsp

• Supports both Vim and Neovim, offering broader compatibility
• Lightweight and focused solely on LSP integration
• Easier setup for users familiar with traditional Vim plugin architecture

Cons of vim-lsp

• Less extensive completion features compared to nvim-cmp
• Slower development cycle and fewer updates
• Limited extensibility for advanced customization

Code Comparison

vim-lsp configuration:

let g:lsp_diagnostics_enabled = 1
let g:lsp_signs_enabled = 1
let g:lsp_diagnostics_echo_cursor = 1

nvim-cmp configuration:

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

vim-lsp focuses on LSP integration, while nvim-cmp provides a more comprehensive completion framework. vim-lsp uses Vimscript for configuration, making it more accessible to traditional Vim users. nvim-cmp, written in Lua, offers more advanced features and better performance, but requires Neovim.

vim-lsp is a solid choice for users who want basic LSP functionality across both Vim and Neovim. nvim-cmp is better suited for Neovim users seeking a powerful, extensible completion engine with broader language support and more frequent updates.

Pros of nvim-lspconfig

• Provides out-of-the-box configurations for numerous language servers
• Simplifies the setup process for LSP in Neovim
• Maintained by the Neovim team, ensuring compatibility and regular updates

Cons of nvim-lspconfig

• Focused solely on LSP configuration, lacking advanced completion features
• Requires additional plugins for a full completion experience
• May have a steeper learning curve for users new to LSP concepts

Code Comparison

nvim-lspconfig:

require'lspconfig'.pyright.setup{}

nvim-cmp:

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

Summary

nvim-lspconfig is a powerful tool for configuring language servers in Neovim, offering pre-configured setups for many languages. It's maintained by the Neovim team, ensuring compatibility and updates. However, it focuses solely on LSP configuration and lacks advanced completion features.

nvim-cmp, on the other hand, is a completion engine that provides a more comprehensive solution for code completion. It offers a wider range of completion sources and more customization options. While it requires more setup, it provides a more feature-rich completion experience.

The choice between the two depends on your specific needs: nvim-lspconfig for straightforward LSP setup, or nvim-cmp for a more advanced completion system.

Pros of YouCompleteMe

• More mature and established project with a longer history
• Supports a wider range of programming languages out of the box
• Offers semantic completion for C-family languages using clangd

Cons of YouCompleteMe

• Requires compilation and external dependencies, making installation more complex
• Less flexible and harder to customize compared to nvim-cmp
• Heavier resource usage, which may impact performance on older systems

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

nvim-cmp configuration:

require('cmp').setup({
  sources = {
    { name = 'nvim_lsp' },
    { name = 'buffer' },
  },
  mapping = {
    ['<C-Space>'] = cmp.mapping.complete(),
  },
})

YouCompleteMe provides a more straightforward configuration in Vimscript, while nvim-cmp offers a more modular and extensible setup using Lua. nvim-cmp allows for easier customization of completion sources and keybindings, making it more flexible for advanced users.