lsp-docker VS asdf

I believe this has cost me a ton of time but I did learn a lot along the way. lsp-docker highest level function is lsp-docker-start. It calls lsp-workspace-root which calls buffer-file-name which, if starting from a dired buffer, returns nil so lsp-workspace-root returns nil and the LSP server is not started.

I'm trying to figure that out right now. There is lsp-docker which is designed (I'm still half guessing) to have a separate container hold the language server. What I want is a pre-existing container to hold the server. There is partial code in that repo to do that but it appears not fully baked.

If you're on WSL, you may want to take a look at something like lsp-docker which bypass all quirk of Tramp and works directly with your files in WSL. I've never been able to make Tramp work reliably (too much hanging with or without lsp-mode) from Windows -> WSL so bypassing it provides a much better experience.

This is a reasonable point, and something that is being worked on. I definitely think Docker can provide LSP servers as necessary, we're just not quite there. This is something that I'm interested in working on, though I'm not the only one: https://github.com/emacs-lsp/lsp-docker

Yeah, I'm a NixOS user, and nix helps a lot with managing LSP servers on my system at the point that this is not a issue for me, but I agree a solution runing then in a docker or something would fit nice as well, we already have this conecpt: https://github.com/emacs-lsp/lsp-docker/

[0] https://github.com/emacs-lsp/lsp-docker#docker-over-tramp-tbd

The main issue most people have with asdf is that it’s annoyingly slow. Not unusably so, but just enough that it’s irritating.

I identified [0] the source for much of it (sub-shells and pipes) and began a PR [1], but became bogged down with BATS testing, and then found mise / rtx, so kind of lost interest. Sorry. You can always implement these if you’d like.

[0]: https://github.com/asdf-vm/asdf/issues/290#issuecomment-1383...

[1]: https://github.com/asdf-vm/asdf/pull/1441

Or if you need to manage more than just node, asdf has been around for over a decade and works great. You can use a .tool-versions to change runtimes for each project you have, in addition to managing your global runtime versions

https://asdf-vm.com/

Why not just use a tool like asdf (https://asdf-vm.com/) or mise (https://mise.jdx.dev/)?

These tools have the advantage of not being multi-taskers and can manage version for all your tools. You wouldn’t need pyenv and npm and rvm and…

We’ve even started committing the .mise.toml files for projects to our repos. That way, since we work on multiple projects that may need multiple versions of the same tool, it’s handled and documented.

The purpose of a version manager is to help you navigate or install any tools for development easily. Version Manager can be one tool for each dependency (e.g. NVM, g) or One tool for all dependencies (e.g. asdf, mise).

(asdf)[https://asdf-vm.com/] fully supports Python and almost any other language. I've been using it for Ruby, Python, Elixir, and other languages for years and never looked back.

Secondly, our development environments must not drift, because then code may behave differently and a change could pass on our machine but fail in production. There are many tools for locking down environments, e.g nix, pkgx, asdf, containers, etc., and they all share the common goal of being able to lock down dependencies for an environment accurately and deterministically. And that needs to be enforced in our local workflow so we don't have to rely on CI environments for correctness. All developers must have environments that are effectively identical to what runs in CI (which itself should be representative of the production environment).

There are many ways this can be done (e.g nix, pkgx, asdf, containers, etc.), and we won’t get into which specific tools to use, because we'll instead cover the essential essence of preventing environment drift: