> I still think the latter is bonkers for several reasons (SIGABRT being one)...
The fact that we're typing this, and it works -- without the entire world falling apart because of crashes in complex library code -- demonstrates why this is not remotely bonkers.
While I do love vim, its own high level of internal implementation brokenness doesn't really have much bearing on how one implements this sort of thing in a real multi-language IDE.
And as for your question, the answer is ... yes. Sure. Why not? That's what we already do in nearly all IDEs.
No, it's merely a work-around for two very distinct and self-inflicted problems:
- The pain of exposing language-native compiler/language AST and indexing APIs to a JavaScript IDE.
- RMS' inability to accept that GCC might need to expose an AST to external consumers, and his paranoia regarding how that might undermine his GPL-everywhere ideals.
Using JSON for local IPC -- and requiring IDE language support to funnel itself across that high-overhead IPC connection -- is fey.
Well, an open challenge that might help someone understand what I actually think, at least along one axis:
Let's say I want to objectively evaluate the notion that there is such a thing as an arbitrary, self-declared, non-binary "gender" (or "gender identity") that can range across any number of "genders".
In that case, can you specify the set of propositions used to classify something as a "gender"?
Is your definition purely self-referential (cyclic)?
Does your definition exclude other social self-identifications, such as "goth" or "emo"? Why or why not?
Does your definition rely on references to "biological sex" (e.g. male/female)? If so, what are the sexes "male" and "female"?
The science is bad and the politics are deleterious. That has nothing to do with prejudices on my part; thinking that the methodology and behavior is naively toxic at best doesn't mean I disagree with the egalitarian aims that are claimed to be the motivating factor behind this political ideology.
Many of us might say the same thing about the conference's divisive approach, said approach's root in intersectional theory and post-modernist-derived political ideology, and our perception of its nature as grossly deleterious.
How do you know the (heavily politicized, myopically chosen, inescapably coarse-grained) identity groups they're targeting offer a form of diversity that actually has value in the realm of Rust? Why do you believe that these identity group traits correlate strongly with intellectual diversity that is necessary for the project's health?
If anything, this process (and the efforts from which it stems) seem purposefully designed to eliminate intellectual diversity, in favor of a rigid monoculture maintained by empowering political officers in the enforcement of right-think.
This is not a new and unexplored concept.