pycodestyle.nvim VS ultisnips

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.

I always like people's LaTeX-based note taking setups. I'm a mathematician, so I write a lot of LaTeX too. (And I use vim, so I really like vim+Latex workflows).

It's interesting that this post (or rather, the later post that discusses this) talks about the advantages of UltiSnips. The well-known vim-LaTeX posts written by Gilles Castel (RIP) relied pivotally on UltiSnips.

It's not just that UltiSnips is a snippet engine. There are many of those (including LuaSnip, the other snippet engine mentioned in the OP series of articles). It's that UltiSnips can dispatch arbitrary expressions to short python code sections, and python has a great scientific library. For example, it's trivial to write a `sympy` snippet that will simplify or compute a given expression and write the output in latex for you.

But UltiSnips works *terribly* with neovim [1] [2]. Why? Because UltiSnips uses python, and neovim's python interface is 100x slower than vim's python interface. There are design decisions for this and I'm not trying to say that neovim is bad. I use both vim and neovim. But I use vim+UltiSnips+vimtex for writing LaTeX.

LuaSnip has interpolation too. I suppose it would be possible to write more code that calls from LuaSnip to a system like sympy (or other). But that's work. On the other hand, I think it takes a true power user to actually want or use the fancy interpolation functions.

[1]: https://github.com/SirVer/ultisnips/issues/974

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.

I didn't know lsp-zero, but this integration seems just for me except for that I am using UltiSnips instead of luasnip. Just curious how difficult do you think it is to add UltiSnips integration along with cmp-nvim-ultisnips?

If you use UltiSnips, you can just do this:

Snipets or code completion can be done in a number of different ways, and how that is configured will depend on what method you use. In the blog he uses the vim plugin ultisnips. You'll find details on configuration for that in that link.

Heyo, I've been trying to get UltiSnips and YouCompleteMe to work, however, I've ran into a bit of a problem. The python36.dll library does not seem to exist for UltiSnips, and YouCompleteMe cannot locate python at all (screenshots at bottom).