Announcing RLS 1.0 release candidate

announcements
2

Hi @nrc, first of all I wanted to say that I am a big fan of all the progress being made on RLS, rustfmt, and all the other tooling surrounding Rust. It really makes working with the language much better.

However, for RLS specifically, I have some reservations about the viability of moving the tool to a 1.0 release.

I already posted those concerns In the " Announcing Rust 2018 Preview 2!" post, here, but I'll copy paste them here, as this is a better fit.

I wasn't sure if I was alone in this sentiment, but from looking at the Reddit thread, it looks like there are quite a few people experiencing the same.

Again, this is not a knock on all the work already done, just a question if it's really 1.0-ready yet.

As a (very) new Rustacean, it's awesome to see the speed at which the Rust community moves forward, while also still keeping backward compatibility in mind.

I had one question about this quote:

Both rustfmt and the RLS have reached 1.0 “release candidate” status. Look for more information about that soon.

I'm eagerly awaiting the "more information" part, but until then, I wonder what "1.0" means for these tools, specifically for RLS.

As a developer, I enjoy learning new programming languages (and especially the standard library) by exploring. Building small utilities in my editor, creating a variable of one type, and allowing code completion to guide me towards the capabilities of each type and how they function.

In Rust, this hasn't been such a great experience so far, unfortunately.

Specifically, RLS (and Racer) hasn't been able to complete quite some code that I've been playing with. Maybe it's just my set up, but from what I've read, I'm not the only one experiencing this, and this is because the compiler - for now - can't give RLS (all) the information it needs, having it fall back to the less accurate Racer, resulting in no code completion to show up at all, or a "goto" action going to a similarly named, but differently namespaced type.

Specifically, here are two GH issues I replied to:

The biggest problem with this is that it interrupts the workflow. When no auto-completion shows up, you start to wonder "did I do something wrong? Or is this an RLS issue? Should I report it, or is this known because of the lack of compiler support?" The next step then is to go open the (awesome!) Rust docs to find more information about that type and the methods it supports.

So my question/remark would be: if my findings are accurate, and RLS isn't that reliable yet, what's the main reason to already move it to 1.0, instead of letting it bake a bit more until its reliability is high enough?

5 Likes