pycodestyle.nvim VS kok.nvim

With that said, there is still a use for remote plugins: if you really need a libraries from that ecosystem, and you would have those libraries anyway, then there is no harm done. I have a plugin called pycodestyle.nvim which makes your Pycodestyle linter configuration available in Neovim. That way I can use my linter settings as my editor settings per project, no need to keep separate settings in sync. If I want to use that plugin I need Pycodestyle installed anyway, and if Pycodestyle is not available to plugin stays dormant.

Not really. There is exactly one legitimate use case for writing plugins in something other than Lua or Vim script: if you want to use libraries written in that language. For example, I have a plugin named pycodestyle.nvim which is written in Python because it uses the Pycodestyle library to figure out the user's linter configuration. If I wanted to do it in Lua I would basically have to re-implement a major part of Pycodestyle myself, which would be a pointless waste of time. And people who use that plugin already have Pycodestyle installed anyway, so it's not an extra dependency.

Link. When I write Python I usually have pycodestyle as my linter, and this got me thinking: If I already have a linter configuration for a project, why not just use the linter configuration as my editor configuration as well? The linter configuration is useful to others even if they use a different editor and I don't have to duplicate it in a local vimrc or editorconfig file. I can just use what I already have.

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