Pros of clangd

• Provides comprehensive language server functionality for C/C++, including code completion, diagnostics, and navigation
• Offers broader IDE integration beyond just Vim, supporting multiple editors and IDEs
• Continuously updated and maintained by the LLVM community

Cons of clangd

• Requires more setup and configuration compared to vim-clang-format
• May have higher resource usage due to its full language server capabilities
• Not specifically tailored for Vim integration like vim-clang-format

Code Comparison

vim-clang-format:

let g:clang_format#style_options = {
            \ "AccessModifierOffset" : -4,
            \ "AllowShortIfStatementsOnASingleLine" : "true",
            \ "AlwaysBreakTemplateDeclarations" : "true",
            \ "Standard" : "C++11"}

clangd:

{
  "clangd.arguments": [
    "--header-insertion=iwyu",
    "--suggest-missing-includes",
    "--background-index"
  ]
}

The vim-clang-format example shows configuration options for formatting style, while the clangd example demonstrates command-line arguments for advanced features. clangd offers more extensive functionality beyond just formatting, but vim-clang-format provides a simpler, Vim-specific solution for code formatting.

Pros of llvm-project

• Comprehensive suite of tools and libraries for compiler development
• Actively maintained by a large community of developers
• Includes the complete LLVM toolchain, offering more functionality beyond just code formatting

Cons of llvm-project

• Significantly larger and more complex, requiring more resources to set up and use
• Not specifically designed for integration with Vim, potentially requiring additional configuration
• May be overkill for users only interested in code formatting functionality

Code comparison

vim-clang-format:

let g:clang_format#command = 'clang-format'
let g:clang_format#style_options = {
            \ "BasedOnStyle" : "LLVM",
            \ "IndentWidth" : 4,
            \ "ColumnLimit" : 100}

llvm-project (using clang-format directly):

clang-format -style="{BasedOnStyle: llvm, IndentWidth: 4, ColumnLimit: 100}" -i file.cpp

Summary

vim-clang-format is a lightweight Vim plugin specifically designed for integrating clang-format into Vim, making it easy to format code within the editor. llvm-project, on the other hand, is a comprehensive suite of compiler and toolchain technologies, which includes clang-format among many other tools. While llvm-project offers more functionality and is more actively maintained, it may be excessive for users solely interested in code formatting within Vim.

Pros of rtags

• Provides advanced code navigation and refactoring capabilities
• Offers real-time indexing of C/C++ projects
• Integrates with multiple editors and IDEs beyond Vim

Cons of rtags

• More complex setup and configuration process
• Requires a separate daemon to run in the background
• May have higher resource usage for large projects

Code comparison

vim-clang-format:

let g:clang_format#style_options = {
            \ "AccessModifierOffset" : -4,
            \ "AllowShortIfStatementsOnASingleLine" : "true",
            \ "AlwaysBreakTemplateDeclarations" : "true",
            \ "Standard" : "C++11"}

rtags:

#include <rtags/RTags.h>

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
    RTags::initThreadPool();
    // Additional rtags-specific code
}

vim-clang-format focuses on code formatting within Vim, while rtags provides broader functionality for C/C++ development across multiple editors. vim-clang-format is easier to set up and use for simple formatting tasks, whereas rtags offers more advanced features but requires more configuration. The code examples show the different approaches: vim-clang-format uses Vim-specific configuration, while rtags involves C++ code integration for its functionality.

Pros of cquery

• Provides a more comprehensive C/C++ language server with advanced features like code completion, diagnostics, and navigation
• Offers better performance and scalability for large codebases
• Supports cross-references and symbol search across the entire project

Cons of cquery

• Requires more setup and configuration compared to vim-clang-format
• May have a steeper learning curve for users new to language servers
• Less focused on code formatting, which is the primary function of vim-clang-format

Code Comparison

vim-clang-format:

let g:clang_format#style_options = {
            \ "AccessModifierOffset" : -4,
            \ "AllowShortIfStatementsOnASingleLine" : "true",
            \ "AlwaysBreakTemplateDeclarations" : "true",
            \ "Standard" : "C++11"}

cquery:

{
  "initializationOptions": {
    "cacheDirectory": "/path/to/cquery/cache",
    "indexWhitelist": ["/path/to/project"],
    "extraClangArguments": ["-std=c++17"]
  }
}

The code snippets show the configuration differences between the two projects. vim-clang-format focuses on formatting options, while cquery's configuration is more about project setup and indexing. cquery offers more advanced features but requires more complex configuration, whereas vim-clang-format is simpler and more focused on code formatting.

Pros of ccls

• Provides a full-featured C/C++/Objective-C language server, offering more comprehensive language support
• Offers advanced features like code completion, go-to-definition, and find references across the entire project
• Supports multiple build systems and compilation databases, making it more versatile for different project setups

Cons of ccls

• Requires more setup and configuration compared to vim-clang-format's simpler integration
• May have higher resource usage due to its more extensive functionality
• Focuses on language server capabilities rather than specifically on code formatting

Code Comparison

vim-clang-format:

let g:clang_format#command = 'clang-format'
let g:clang_format#style_options = {
            \ "BasedOnStyle" : "LLVM",
            \ "IndentWidth" : 4,
            \ "ColumnLimit" : 100}

ccls:

{
  "initializationOptions": {
    "cache": {
      "directory": "/tmp/ccls"
    },
    "clang": {
      "extraArgs": ["-std=c++17"]
    }
  }
}

The code snippets show configuration examples for each tool. vim-clang-format focuses on formatting options, while ccls configuration includes broader language server settings.

Pros of ctags

• Supports a wide range of programming languages and file formats
• Generates comprehensive tag files for efficient code navigation
• Actively maintained with regular updates and improvements

Cons of ctags

• Requires separate installation and configuration
• Not specifically designed for code formatting like vim-clang-format

Code comparison

vim-clang-format:

let g:clang_format#style_options = {
            \ "AccessModifierOffset" : -4,
            \ "AllowShortIfStatementsOnASingleLine" : "true",
            \ "AlwaysBreakTemplateDeclarations" : "true",
            \ "Standard" : "C++11"}

ctags:

ctags -R --fields=+l --languages=python --python-kinds=-iv -f ./tags ./

Key differences

• Purpose: vim-clang-format focuses on code formatting, while ctags is for generating tag files for code navigation
• Language support: vim-clang-format is specific to C-family languages, ctags supports multiple languages
• Integration: vim-clang-format is a Vim plugin, ctags is a standalone tool usable with various editors

Use cases

• vim-clang-format: Ideal for developers working primarily with C-family languages who want automatic code formatting in Vim
• ctags: Suitable for developers working with multiple languages who need efficient code navigation across large codebases