Re: My perspective as a mid-level user on pros/cons of different editors

[Stefan Kangas]

Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden> writes:

> On 20.05.2020 17:04, Stefan Kangas wrote:
>> I agree that, if we want users to interact with it, "eglot" is a pretty
>> hard to understand name.  Perhaps "lsp-start" and "lsp-stop" would be
>> okay here, if that makes sense.
>
> So, what's your opinion on how lsp-mode would react to that particular
> rename, and how should we feel about that?

They chose to be uncooperative, AFAIU?  Then where does that leave us?
Maybe the onus is on them to choose a name which will not obviously
conflict with the support we will likely (or obviously) want in core.

It is good that they developed lsp-mode, but it is disappointing that
they have so light-heartedly dismissed the possibility of getting it
into core or GNU ELPA.

If we agree that it is important to have lsp-support in core (my
preference), or at least very easily installible through GNU ELPA, I
don't see why we should worry at all about them somehow owning the
prefix "lsp-".  Because they don't.

On the other hand, we could avoid the problem by using something like
"lsp-core".  It is not optimal but at least helps avoid name clashes.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas