helpful VS eglot

If you want to programmatically create files, write to them, etc, then read the fine manual, it comes with your Emacs, has index, search and web-like navigation. It is well worth your time investing in looking up the manual, both for Emacs and for Elisp. You access the manual via C-h i. Another good thing to learn how to use is Emacs built-in help. As a minimal basic, C-h f will display information about functions, and C-h v will display the documentation for variables. You can also see where things are declared, open the source code, etc. A good alternative to built-in help is Helpful, which I suggest installing and start using too.

It tweaks Emacs GC. You can run M-x describe-variable while your cursor is at gc-cons-threshold to learn about it. If you opted-in for using "Vim bindings" (Evil mode), you can press K while in normal mode. Note that K doesn't run the describe- command in Doom, but it runs helpful-command from (https://github.com/Wilfred/helpful), which provides more context that describe- commands usually do.

The packages helpful and elisp-demos are super useful because they enhance Emacs' built-in documentation.

You can try to actually use helpful for a while. There was also a package with examples, I don't remember the name, perhaps someone else knows which I mean, that shows usage of a function where available. I remember using it and found it very useful for a while when I was learning elisp more actively. I still use helpful sometimes.

Once you got the hang of keybindings, which-key is a helpful extension (aka package) to Emacs. At this stage, there are other helpful packages and keybindings.

helpful for better help buffers

Since you seem interested, have a look at elisp-demos , too. It works in tandem with helpful.

Elisp Docs are fantastic they have documented everything while with CL most documentation is missing or only on the Web. With Emacs, one need to learn about C-h f (describe-function), C-h k (describe-key), helpful.el and elisp-demos and a new world opens. Terminology is always different, simple example: Microsoft terminology sounds like bullshit, to a Unix person.

Your primary source of knowledge will be the manual and the built-in discoverability (describe-* functions, or helpful) and of course reading the code. I'm not a manual person myself, but Emacs is one of the examples where it is truly excellent and has answers for almost everything.

Recently I stumbled upon this issue:

https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot/discussions/1127

I don't know enough about emacs and LSP to see the full picture, but it seems that both eglot's and corfu's maintainers, assumably very competent programmers, can't find a solution for this.

I only skimmed the thread. My understanding is that LSP dumps a long list of completion candidates at once and they can't decide a cache strategy that works well with existing code...?

It could be. There are unfixed issues with eglot and corfu, and sadly not a lot of willingness to investigate.

Eglot errors when I add new Python code blocks. The error disappears when I reconnect the language server, but the same happens again when I add a new code block. My "workaround" now is that before I start working on the .qmd file, I just add a bunch of Python code blocks (for which I also have a function) and then reconnect the language server again. This way I can start working for a while until I need to add more code blocks again.

This discussion has helped with some performance issues: https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot/discussions/993.

I guess eglot doesn't support it yet: https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot/pull/839

This is not by pure chance, João is the developer of the Eglot LSP client and the breadcrumbs from LSP-mode had been requested as a feature, but as far as I remember João thought rightfully that this could be an independent package, see https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot/discussions/988

A substantial section of the community is using corfu instead of company, but I wouldn't say company is out of date by any means. In emacs 29 eglot will be a built in, which might act as a replacement for lsp-mode depending on what functionality you need.

I am currently running emacs 29 (built from emacs-29 branch) which – according to https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot – should contain the latest eglot.

Yep. You can use flymake or flycheck for that in combination with eglot or lsp-mode.

See https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot#diagnostics

(I have reported this (that is, ElDoc missing docs for callable things at point, when Eglot is enabled) as an issue recently: First on GitHub-discussions https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot/discussions/1200, then on Debbugs https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=62687. But the threads are very long, so I don't recommend reading them.)