dash.el VS pylance-release

A lot of Clojure-style goodness can be provided by using the excellent dash package:

We will mainly look at 3 packages: s.el, f.el and dash.el. Two of these packages (first and last) are maintained by Magnar Sveen, who are also known for Emacs Rocks and What The .emacs.d (which are still great resources for learning and finding inspiration for your Emacs configuration!). We will also look at ht.el. These packages are used a lot in many of the Emacs packages you use in a day to day basis, like lsp-mode and rustic just to name a few. As most of these already have tons of examples in their READMEs, my main goal of this article is to inspire you to check them out. Hopefully you will know of one new package after reading this article :)

That error means that the -compose function is undefined and it should come from https://github.com/magnars/dash.el

Fail #1: Wrong type argument: symbolp, "dash" Try symbolifying the key string dash... Fetcher: nil Source: https://github.com/magnars/dash.el.git

elpa dash recipe is (dash :url https://github.com/magnars/dash.el.git :doc dash.texi :auto-sync t) Fail #1: Wrong type argument: symbolp, "dash" Try symbolifying the key string dash... Fail #2: Failed to checkout ‘dash’: ‘Symbol’s function definition is void: quelpa-build--checkout-nil’

It is quite a bit more readable comparing (for example) to what you'd do in Python, basically a matter of few extra quotes. Here's an example https://github.com/magnars/dash.el/blob/a17b6b5409825891423b...

Another benefit apart from macros is that you can replace whole subexpressions to modify the function code: https://github.com/raxod502/el-patch#el-patch Although arguably you can achieve the same with source code and other languages: https://github.com/adamchainz/patchy#patchy

Although (as a keen Emacs user & someone who often hacks into existing librairies) user I'm not really convinced either that homoiconicity plays that huge of a role in Emacs malleability in particular -- to me it's more about hooks/advice system and being able to dynamically override things to tweak into the way I want them to behave -- and I don't see a good reason why this couldn't be possible in other languages.

One of the things that comes to mind here is the fact that the default Python extension for VS Code is, perhaps surprisingly to many, not open source. https://github.com/microsoft/pylance-release

While it's possible to fork VS Code, it is not possible to fork VS Code and provide a seamless onramp towards a Python editing experience that is fully open source, because users are used to the nuances of the closed-source Pylance experience in VS Code proper. You could use the minified/compiled Pylance plugin in your fork, but you'd have no way to expand its capabilities to new hooks your fork provides. Microsoft's development process would always be able to move faster than a fork, because it could coordinate VS Code internal API development with its internal Pylance team, and could become incompatible with forks at any time.

It's worth re-reading the quote from J Allard in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis... with this modern example in mind.

(Also worth mentioning https://github.com/detachhead/basedpyright?tab=readme-ov-fil... which is a heroic effort to derisk this, but it's an uphill battle for sure!)

Anyone know how can we fix this issue if we build the vscode locally

Do any of these issue tickets explain the behaviour you're seeing? https://github.com/microsoft/pylance-release/issues/4341, https://github.com/microsoft/pylance-release/issues/4071

Maybe they "are the same thing" in terms of behavior (I don't know), but "A uses B" doesn't mean that "A is B".

One important difference in this case is that while "Pylance leverages Microsoft's open-source static type checking tool, Pyright" [1], Pylance itself is not open source. In fact, the license [2] restricts you to "use [...] the software only with [...] Microsoft products and services", which means that you are not allowed to use it with a non-Microsoft open source fork of VS Code, for example.

The license terms also say that by accepting the license, you agree that "The software may collect information about you and your use of the software, and send that to Microsoft" and that "You may opt-out of many of these scenarios, but not all".

[1] https://github.com/microsoft/pylance-release

[2] https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items/ms-python.vscode-...

There's this one: https://github.com/microsoft/pylance-release/issues/4174 (rules don't apply properly, and ovverrides don't work even after being set, this is especially for the more generic ones like )

The example is not .NET in general, but that specific event when Microsoft reneged on open development tooling[1]. For some people, that was the moment they stopped trusting "new Microsoft" to keep their word (though for me, it was when the Python language server was replaced with a DRM-locked, LSP-noncompliant one[2] a bit before that; unlike .NET hot reload, they didn't backtrack there). I can think the company makes great open .NET tools and at the same time not trust them to close it down on a whim.

Does anyone know where the open xlang reimplementation of MIDL went[3], by the way? (Unlike 1990s MIDL, you can't reimplement this one from the language grammar in the docs, because there is no language grammar in the docs.)

[1] https://dusted.codes/can-we-trust-microsoft-with-open-source and links there

[2] https://github.com/microsoft/pylance-release/issues

[3] https://github.com/microsoft/xlang/pull/529