pylance-release VS doom-emacs

One of the things that comes to mind here is the fact that the default Python extension for VS Code is, perhaps surprisingly to many, not open source. https://github.com/microsoft/pylance-release

While it's possible to fork VS Code, it is not possible to fork VS Code and provide a seamless onramp towards a Python editing experience that is fully open source, because users are used to the nuances of the closed-source Pylance experience in VS Code proper. You could use the minified/compiled Pylance plugin in your fork, but you'd have no way to expand its capabilities to new hooks your fork provides. Microsoft's development process would always be able to move faster than a fork, because it could coordinate VS Code internal API development with its internal Pylance team, and could become incompatible with forks at any time.

It's worth re-reading the quote from J Allard in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis... with this modern example in mind.

(Also worth mentioning https://github.com/detachhead/basedpyright?tab=readme-ov-fil... which is a heroic effort to derisk this, but it's an uphill battle for sure!)

Anyone know how can we fix this issue if we build the vscode locally

Do any of these issue tickets explain the behaviour you're seeing? https://github.com/microsoft/pylance-release/issues/4341, https://github.com/microsoft/pylance-release/issues/4071

Maybe they "are the same thing" in terms of behavior (I don't know), but "A uses B" doesn't mean that "A is B".

One important difference in this case is that while "Pylance leverages Microsoft's open-source static type checking tool, Pyright" [1], Pylance itself is not open source. In fact, the license [2] restricts you to "use [...] the software only with [...] Microsoft products and services", which means that you are not allowed to use it with a non-Microsoft open source fork of VS Code, for example.

The license terms also say that by accepting the license, you agree that "The software may collect information about you and your use of the software, and send that to Microsoft" and that "You may opt-out of many of these scenarios, but not all".

[1] https://github.com/microsoft/pylance-release

[2] https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items/ms-python.vscode-...

There's this one: https://github.com/microsoft/pylance-release/issues/4174 (rules don't apply properly, and ovverrides don't work even after being set, this is especially for the more generic ones like )

The example is not .NET in general, but that specific event when Microsoft reneged on open development tooling[1]. For some people, that was the moment they stopped trusting "new Microsoft" to keep their word (though for me, it was when the Python language server was replaced with a DRM-locked, LSP-noncompliant one[2] a bit before that; unlike .NET hot reload, they didn't backtrack there). I can think the company makes great open .NET tools and at the same time not trust them to close it down on a whim.

Does anyone know where the open xlang reimplementation of MIDL went[3], by the way? (Unlike 1990s MIDL, you can't reimplement this one from the language grammar in the docs, because there is no language grammar in the docs.)

[1] https://dusted.codes/can-we-trust-microsoft-with-open-source and links there

[2] https://github.com/microsoft/pylance-release/issues

[3] https://github.com/microsoft/xlang/pull/529

$ rm -rf ~/.config/emacs # Remove the existing directory if necessary git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hlissner/doom-emacs ~/.config/emacs ~/.config/emacs/bin/doom install

Sounds like what you want is emacs, but preconfigured. In that case, have you tried Doom Emacs, Spacemacs or any of the myriad of others like those?

darren@pop-os:~$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hlissner/doom-emacs ~/.emacs.d Cloning into '/home/darren/.emacs.d'... remote: Enumerating objects: 1156, done. remote: Counting objects: 100% (1156/1156), done. remote: Compressing objects: 100% (1042/1042), done. remote: Total 1156 (delta 85), reused 650 (delta 71), pack-reused 0 Receiving objects: 100% (1156/1156), 1.13 MiB | 7.29 MiB/s, done. Resolving deltas: 100% (85/85), done.

I used to do something like -{ nixosConfig, config, lib, pkgs, ... }: -let - xdgConfig = config.xdg.configHome; -in { - home.activation = { - foo = lib.hm.dag.entryAfter [ "writeBoundary" ] '' - doomdir="${xdgConfig}/doom"; - # $VERBOSE_ARG - if [ -d "$doomdir" ]; then - $DRY_RUN_CMD git -C "$doomdir" pull http master || true - else - # git clone and change url - http="https://git." - $DRY_RUN_CMD git clone "$http" "$doomdir" - # the new url needs ssh keys setup - git -C "$doomdir" remote add http "$http" - git -C "$doomdir" remote set-url origin "gitea@git." - fi - emacsdir="${xdgConfig}/emacs" - if [ -d "$emacsdir" ]; then - if [ -d "$emacsdir/.local" ]; then - $DRY_RUN_CMD $emacsdir/bin/doom sync - fi - else - $DRY_RUN_CMD git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hlissner/doom-emacs "$emacsdir" - fi - ''; - }; -}

`;; Needed to add javascript-eslint to the the next-checker after lsp so that it would actually load, as that wasn’t happening by deafult ;; also needed to runit after the lsp-afer-initalize-hook because otherwise ‘lsp wasn’t a valid checker (add-hook ‘lsp-after-initialize-hook (lambda () (flycheck-add-next-checker ‘lsp ‘javascript-eslint))) ;; https://github.com/hlissner/doom-emacs/issues/1530 ;; Potential alternative to the above ;; (after! (:and lsp-mode flycheck) ;; (flycheck-add-next-checker ‘lsp ‘javascript-eslint))

The performance lag of Spacemacs was addressed by Doom Emacs ( https://github.com/hlissner/doom-emacs ). Have you tried Doom Emacs by any chance. After syncing everything, the performance is stellar in my opinion.

but I just realized, you're probably better off using doom emacs. The defaults are sane, customizations are almost always optional and the community's really active/helpful. (Disclaimer: I'm a doom emacs user with ~2k lines of config)

While Doom is more opinionated, it's not too difficult make Emacs your own, most of the choices are optimized anyway. Currently the head of Spacemacs devs is not active on the project anymore. Also I don't think it's hard to upstream code to Doom, as long as the code is thoroughly written, take a similar example on both sides: the introduction of a completion engine as layer/module (same packages are installed): - https://github.com/syl20bnr/spacemacs/pull/14901: 23 comments, 7 participants - https://github.com/hlissner/doom-emacs/pull/4664: 576 comments, 20 participants

Also Doom emacs has one. https://github.com/hlissner/doom-emacs https://github.com/hlissner/doom-emacs/tree/master/modules/lang/common-lisp

Nowadays, I use https://github.com/hlissner/doom-emacs with WSL2 but only for org-mode. For code, I have either Sublime Text or VS Code.