YARD VS eglot

JSDOC is a predefined method of documenting code for javascript ecosystem created in 1999 that works similar to libraries for other languages such as: Javadoc for java, YARD for ruby, etc..

In addition to project documentation, you've included a lot of code comments. You could adopt a standardized format and use it to generate API documentation. RDoc and YARD are two options. If I were reviewing this code at work, I would probably ask you to remove comments that explain what, not why.

I still just document everything using YARD and focus on designing really obvious Object Models and of course write tests. I have tried using sord to convert my YARD type annotations to RBS or RBI, but you still have to fill in missing bits, then use steep and somehow load in RBS/RBI files for other gems and stdlib, and it's just an uphill battle since Ruby is dynamically typed by default. Obviously Dynamic Typing lends itself more to Dynamic Languages, where you can call an arbitrary method and let the language VM figure it out at runtime. Static or Strong Typing lends itself better to compiled languages where everything needs to be resolved at compile time and converted into object code. If I need to work in a compiled language, then I'll use Crystal, which also supports type inference. TypeScript's type syntax is quite nice, but I tend to avoid writing massive JavaScript code bases where a Type Checker helps catch subtle bugs, and instead prefer sticking to minimal amounts of vanilla JavaScriot in order to keep complexity low and not overwhelm the browser.

I had a dig into the file history, and it looks like we have to go back to 0.7 to find the old tag list. Here we find the info we need to understand the intent of the @option tag:

YARD: http://yardoc.org/

I tend to follow along using the YardDoc comment style. It has many small things I love about it; an example is when yardoc is followed it can be used to generate RBS/Sorbet type files with the sord gem, you can also generate application documents similar to rdoc/sdoc.

That turns out to be a pretty common use case for markdown. Github, for example, renders your README.md is part of a git repo's "home" page. It's also common to have tooling that parses specially formatted comments in your source code and produce a documentation bundle, usually as a web page (ex. RDoc, YARD, JSDoc, etc.).

My first assumption was, that I should be able to generate markdown from the source. Same ruby and rails does now, but only tweaking a couple of parameters to generate .md files instead. YARD is being used for that and it supports any markup rdoc or yard.

I’ve long used the YARD format and chose to use that as my documentation syntax. I suppose I didn’t check with anyone on this decision and slowly started adding documentation. I want to use this post to synthesize my implicit decision and the benefits of using Yard as the documentation format.

That said, YARD is a ruby documentation tool that has a yard graph command you can use to dump a UML graph for your app into a .dot file, which can be used with lots of different graphing tools (usually graphviz but there are a bunch of online tools and open source projects that can visualize them for you).

Recently I stumbled upon this issue:

https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot/discussions/1127

I don't know enough about emacs and LSP to see the full picture, but it seems that both eglot's and corfu's maintainers, assumably very competent programmers, can't find a solution for this.

I only skimmed the thread. My understanding is that LSP dumps a long list of completion candidates at once and they can't decide a cache strategy that works well with existing code...?

It could be. There are unfixed issues with eglot and corfu, and sadly not a lot of willingness to investigate.

Eglot errors when I add new Python code blocks. The error disappears when I reconnect the language server, but the same happens again when I add a new code block. My "workaround" now is that before I start working on the .qmd file, I just add a bunch of Python code blocks (for which I also have a function) and then reconnect the language server again. This way I can start working for a while until I need to add more code blocks again.

This discussion has helped with some performance issues: https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot/discussions/993.

I guess eglot doesn't support it yet: https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot/pull/839

This is not by pure chance, João is the developer of the Eglot LSP client and the breadcrumbs from LSP-mode had been requested as a feature, but as far as I remember João thought rightfully that this could be an independent package, see https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot/discussions/988

A substantial section of the community is using corfu instead of company, but I wouldn't say company is out of date by any means. In emacs 29 eglot will be a built in, which might act as a replacement for lsp-mode depending on what functionality you need.

I am currently running emacs 29 (built from emacs-29 branch) which – according to https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot – should contain the latest eglot.

Yep. You can use flymake or flycheck for that in combination with eglot or lsp-mode.

See https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot#diagnostics

(I have reported this (that is, ElDoc missing docs for callable things at point, when Eglot is enabled) as an issue recently: First on GitHub-discussions https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot/discussions/1200, then on Debbugs https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=62687. But the threads are very long, so I don't recommend reading them.)