rfcs VS language-tools

Navigating to URLs with #hash-targets in them is not supported by most single-page-app frameworks due to the async rendering nature of modern web apps -- the browser can't scroll to a #hash-target on page load / transition because the element hasn't rendered yet. There is an issue about this for Ember here on the RFCs repo.

Ember.js development doesn’t stagnate. Progress is already being made for new improvements to the current component model. The RFC for first-class component templates has been accepted and merged in 2022 and will provide new benefits to Ember users. By first adopting Glimmer components, we’re prepared for what’s coming next.

yeah, I think that's being designed (for runtime).We have build-time efforts / validation already via official typescript support https://github.com/emberjs/rfcs/pull/748 with Glint: https://typed-ember.gitbook.io/glint/

During the 4.x series, we aim to finish the work to officially support TypeScript.

The latest versions of Ember.js (Octane) have built-in decorator support and they're discussed in the RFC:

https://github.com/emberjs/rfcs/blob/master/text/0408-decora...

https://guides.emberjs.com/release/in-depth-topics/native-cl...

At ok, legit. that's like a modifier from ember.

have you seen: https://github.com/emberjs/rfcs/pull/779? I think that addresses the "where does this come from?" in completion.

What I like about Ember is that it gives a lot of rigid structure that, at least at one point, made it comparatively easy to work on multiple Ember based projects and be productive sooner.

As you've pointed out, a problem with that project is that there's a ton of intimate knowledge for how things work under the hood or why things are the way they are. They also seem to oscillate between opting for simplicity and opting for complexity and magic.

One example would be the latest version of Ember which doesn't even ship with `@ember/render-modifiers` by default despite how everyone will end up installing it anyway because it's necessary; they were talking about providing an alternative based on the actor model, despite modifiers being far easier to understand, somehow they are still wrong:

> Either way, we recommend using these modifiers with caution. They are very useful for quickly bridging the gap between classic components and Glimmer components, but they are still generally an anti-pattern.

https://github.com/emberjs/ember-render-modifiers

Why on earth did they reinvent components and ship them without providing the supposedly correct way of interacting with their lifecycle? You actually have to install a separate add-on to develop a production-ready app with Ember, which completely flies in the face of the idea that you can run `ember new` and have pretty much everything you need.

Strangely (an thankfully), the RFC for the needlessly complicated alternative for lifecycle interaction is effectively stalled:

https://github.com/emberjs/rfcs/pull/567

By their own language, the only official way to interact with component/element lifecycle is an antipattern.

/rant

I don't use nvchad, I use vanilla neovim with mason + lspconfig, but in the issues section there is a hint https://github.com/sveltejs/language-tools/issues/2008

I've opened an issue on the sveltejs repo on GitHub (there's more info there, like steps to reproduce) and haven't got any answers yet, so I'm hoping I'll have better luck here, maybe someone has faced this before.

It was a bit hard to understand but after reading this issue, it worked for me like this:

Hi. I just got into Svelte today and I was wondering about the Svelte LSP's features. I found this issue https://github.com/sveltejs/language-tools/issues/83, which indicates that "extract into const/function/component refactorings" code actions are already implemented for the Svelte LSP.

However, the Svelte Language Tools does leverage JSX for type checking via svelte2tsx.

Not yet, but there’s an open issue: https://github.com/sveltejs/language-tools/issues/1326

svelte-check: check only files mentioned as arguments #353