kok.nvim VS deoplete.nvim

In the examples listed on this page https://github.com/ms-jpq/coq_nvim, there is a pattern overlay over the whole screen. Is there a neovim plugin that does this? Thanks.

nvim-cmp or coq_nvim is for autocompletion. Treesitter is for parsing language syntax. (I guess the most typical use case for this would be syntax highlighting.) Note that (neo)vim also has built in manual completion that you can use by setting up your omnifunc and triggering it with in insert mode .

Aw man that's not nice to hear. I have had my own struggle with lsp not gonna lie. I used to use coc until it got too slow, after struggling for like 2 days lol lsp is working fast and neat. I'd suggest you to take a look at coq https://github.com/ms-jpq/coq_nvim which claims to be fast as fuck (literally lol) and also claims to be faster than lsp (because its written using c or something). Haven't tried it personally

Coq_nvim

I'm attempting to use (coq_nvim)[https://github.com/ms-jpq/coq_nvim]. This is my config:

Does your coq_nvim and nvim-lspconfig really load? Because they have opts = true

I'd be happy for someone who knows more about this to correct me. But in my experience as well, nvim-cmp is not as good completion as vscode, its suggestions can be all over the place sometimes. I found that coq_nvim tends to better in this regard. I still prefer nvim-cmp for other reasons but you should definitely try coq_nvim out and see if you have a better experience.

Coq_nvim isn't the same as Coc.nvim. Coq is a completion plugin with lots of caching written in Python that works alongside the builtin LSP. Coc is an LSP client (and has it's own plugin ecosystem) written in Node.

There are some like https://github.com/SirVer/ultisnips and https://github.com/ms-jpq/coq_nvim. Speed is not really an issue, I guess people just prefer to have fewer dependencies and use lua which is already bundled in neovim.

Maybe using coq.nvim instead of nvim-cmp could help (?) dince it caches the LSP responses. I haven't test it, though

I think in-the-wild examples like Ultisnips deoplete semshi (although they are advanced and somewhat complex) would also be good examples to learn how one can use python for writing plugins.

If you post your issue on https://github.com/Shougo/deoplete.nvim/issues, Shougo might be able to better assist you.

I have a problem with Deoplete and Vim-LSP completion (Python's Pylsp and Jedi-Language-Server). The suggestion is much less, and it also misses a lot of opportunities to suggest compared to Deoplete-Jedi, which literally defeats the former by a large margin. Is there a setting to make this duo works like deoplete with deoplete-jedi?

Someone made an issue on this question, with the author suggesting float-previewnvim.

This exactly why I keep using deoplete! Other completion plugins don't handle middle of word completion correctly.

As we can see, it's a deoplete issue. By reading the docs at https://github.com/Shougo/deoplete.nvim, under the requirements section, it needs nvim to be compiled with python support.

Hmm. Maybe I don't know what to look for (not an expert at vim), but I have searched the deoplete documentation and I can't see any options to allow as-you-type omnicompletion. There are things like external sources, but I don't need that. Everything is available from , I just need that to be automatic.

For me I've been using deoplete.nvim for everyday use and for a long time and will probably transition to [ddc.vim](https://github.com/Shougo/ddc.vim] which is the next iteration after deoplete from the same author and is very similar to cmp in terms of setup with user customization.

To my knowledge thats not possible with omnicompletion. For this you would have to use an auto-completion plugin. I am using compe because its fast, minimal and integrates well with the builtin nvim-lsp but there are many others. The most popular is probably coc. You could also check out deoplete.