undefined | Better HN

0 pointsTheCapeGreek1y ago0 comments

PSA: No matter how good you are, please don't do this if you're working in a tech stack you are not familiar with, in a team with people who are experts and are using fully fledged IDEs.

There will be inevitable ultra-basic mistakes, especially if you're also not familiar with testing the code you're actually writing.

I say this as a specialist using an IDE and having had PRs sent to me that weren't even syntactically valid, because the developer was not using an LSP in a language they were not familiar with.

0 comments

6 comments · 3 top-level

CrLf1y ago· 1 in thread

Maybe submitting PRs with code that wasn't even run is the problem, not IDE features?

TheCapeGreekOP1y ago

...and if you're new to the language, it's easy to trip up, especially if you also have habits of not always testing even "simple" code.

It's not the sole cause to not use IDE tooling, but it is a significant contributor.

akritid1y ago· 1 in thread

Not using LSP does not mean not compiling/running. Using an LSP should not qualify you to commit without compiling or running either!

TheCapeGreekOP1y ago

If you're new to the language or stack and make absurdly basic syntax mistakes, yes I consider using an LSP-capable editor of some kind a qualifier.

Don't do your job worse just because of your tooling preference. Do what you want when you know you can do the job well and not waste reviewer time.

yxhuvud1y ago· 1 in thread

This happen with IDE people too, and even more often with LSP people. Too many people take what the tooling say as gospel instead of taking the time to get an understanding of what they are doing.

TheCapeGreekOP1y ago

Making mistakes within code logic can happen with any degree of tool, yes.

Using an LSP will at least clearly highlight when you're making the most basic syntax mistake.

Don't do your job worse in tech you don't know when you're expected to perform at a certain professional level.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse