ultisnips VS kok.nvim

Let’s say, you’re writing a web application. In most programming language you’d be using libraries or rely on a framework. With Lisp macros, you can program the archetype of a web application. And then use a simpler language to describe you application. Think of it as programmable snippets. Something like Ultisnips [0], but inherent to the language.

[0]: https://github.com/SirVer/ultisnips

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).

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