YARD VS lsp-mode

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).

I also tried to the solutions suggested  and , but nothing worked. I moved the (setq lsp-keymap-...) line outside (and before) use-package. I also used :config (define-key lsp-load-map...) in my use-package block. But none of them worked.

Not sure how much this might help, but lsp-mode has lsp-yaml-select-buffer-schema and lsp-yaml-set-buffer-schema commands to pick schema from a list or set from a URI. Checking the source of them might give some hints about how the same could be implemented in eglot?

Beyond that you might as well embrace the suck and install autex with a language server: https://emacs-lsp.github.io/lsp-mode/

Smart completion these days is done primarily through LSP. eglot is fairly minimal but built-in as of 29, also available via GNU Elpa. lsp-mode is another option with more integrations and a bit more fleshed out.

lsp-mode: https://github.com/emacs-lsp/lsp-mode/issues/2080

Are you running emacs-29? It has numerous speed-ups compared to emacs-28 and older versions, many of them coded by Mattias Engdegård, e.g. commit def6fa4246. I have a fresh build of emacs-29 running on Linux and a new mac with an M1 CPU, and it's stupid fast. I don't use the native-comp feature. I rarely notice any hesitation or slowness. I don't use Elpy. I do use lsp mode.

Since you are doing code development, the first things to go for would be setting up your emacs packaging (installing use-package and melpa (use-package's documentation covers this) so you have more packages to choose from (do be careful to not just pick things willy nilly but research them a bit first)) and then setting up lsp-mode. lsp-mode lets you use LSP servers for the specific programming languages you work with in a somewhat unified fashion. You then need to install and setup the LSP servers for the languages you use, and possibly install language specific Emacs packages as support (note, Emacs has builtin functionality for many).

And first of all, I'm trying to understand, how is it connected to https://github.com/emacs-lsp/lsp-mode? I'm sure, that existed lsp implementations already parse source code. Why TreeSitter?