I tried this and it actually is pretty darn fast. Coming from completion-nvim, it’s a massive difference in speed. If only the author licensed it properly…
Everything about this ‘edgy’, meme marketing reeks of immaturity – down to naming it Coq right after news of Coq realizing it probably needs a new name. While there is room on the scale for more fun/serious (no, putting emoji in the docs or CLI is not ‘fun’), I think this well overshot into gawdy and something I can’t take seriously.
Very edgy. I respect the author’s choice to represent their project however they like, but it all comes across very unprofessional to me. Profanity aside, the commit log alone makes me wonder about the quality of the project.
I don’t get why professionalism matters here? This is a personal project they made in their spare time and released for other people to use if they want. There’s nothing professional about it.
Profanity aside, the commit log alone makes me wonder about the quality of the project.
Ouch… I just took a look at it, and yes, I understand your reluctance… I never look at the commit log of projects to assess their quality, now I’m thinking that I should start doing that.
I think icy’s point is a good one. If its good software, then who cares. The commit log being organized says nothing about the quality of the software. If the author is working on a thing primarily by themselves, then it doesn’t matter too much if the commit log is clean as they are the only ones that are hurt by it.
If the software solves a problem, then that’s a worthy reason for its existence imho
Reading commit logs is a great first step towards contributing to the project. Whenever I’m learning how a project works, often times I’ll look at the log messages, especially when I want to run git blame or git annotate.
Proper log messages not only help others, but yourself, too. I’ve forgotten a lot of the code I’ve written over the period of my hobbyist/career. I’ve needed to go back and make changes to code I’ve written. So that I can provide the best fix possible, it’s helpful to understand the “why” of a commit. The changes a commit produces the “what” and log messages (should) provide the “why”.
Usually I don’t care too much, stuff like the WTFPL is a bit stupid but ultimately mostly harmless. But this “license” is really dangerous and could end up getting people hurt, if any part of it turns out to be enforceable.
Interpreting this as “can’t sue for any reason ever” should definitely and obviously be unenforceable right? If that could ever work, that’s not an issue with the license, rather that’s a huge issue with the legal system in question.
I mean, I agree. It’s probably not enforceable. But I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer and neither is the author - and I’d not be willing to test it.
I have a lot of confidence that the “you can’t sue me” part of the license is unenforceable, so users of software under this license are probably safe. I assume. Again, not a lawyer. But the part where the license author promises not to ever sue the licensee? I have no idea how that works in court. Could a lawyer argue that the author of the license didn’t know what they were doing so that the license he wrote doesn’t apply to himself? Are there other protections in place to protect license authors from themselves? I really, really wouldn’t want to find out if I was in his shoes.
If there are any lawyers out there who could bring some clarity to this, I’d love to hear it. But the obvious practical solution is to pick a real license.
I’ve used several different completion plugins for neovim over the years and have disliked nearly all of them.
nvim-compe is what I currently use and is the first solution that I’m actually sort of happy with. Unlike many other plugins in this space it isn’t trying to do everything (ahem, looking at you coc…). It’s fast enough that I haven’t been bothered by latency. The docs are reasonable and it wasn’t too complicated to configure.
I tried this and it actually is pretty darn fast. Coming from completion-nvim, it’s a massive difference in speed. If only the author licensed it properly…
Everything about this ‘edgy’, meme marketing reeks of immaturity – down to naming it Coq right after news of Coq realizing it probably needs a new name. While there is room on the scale for more fun/serious (no, putting emoji in the docs or CLI is not ‘fun’), I think this well overshot into gawdy and something I can’t take seriously.
I’m not a huge fan of the copy, but it is pretty good software so I’ll judge it by that metric.
I wouldn’t want to raise an issue or collaborate with the project though
Very edgy. I respect the author’s choice to represent their project however they like, but it all comes across very unprofessional to me. Profanity aside, the commit log alone makes me wonder about the quality of the project.
I don’t get why professionalism matters here? This is a personal project they made in their spare time and released for other people to use if they want. There’s nothing professional about it.
Ouch… I just took a look at it, and yes, I understand your reluctance… I never look at the commit log of projects to assess their quality, now I’m thinking that I should start doing that.
Thanks for saying this!
I think icy’s point is a good one. If its good software, then who cares. The commit log being organized says nothing about the quality of the software. If the author is working on a thing primarily by themselves, then it doesn’t matter too much if the commit log is clean as they are the only ones that are hurt by it.
If the software solves a problem, then that’s a worthy reason for its existence imho
You’re welcome! The log certainly isn’t the only indicator of project quality, but when the readme concerns me I like to check the logs.
The r/vim sub didn’t take kindly either https://redd.it/p5931v considering it’s Neovim only and the react doesn’t inspire confidence
If it’s good software, isn’t that evidence you should care less about the commit log?
Reading commit logs is a great first step towards contributing to the project. Whenever I’m learning how a project works, often times I’ll look at the log messages, especially when I want to run
git blameorgit annotate.Proper log messages not only help others, but yourself, too. I’ve forgotten a lot of the code I’ve written over the period of my hobbyist/career. I’ve needed to go back and make changes to code I’ve written. So that I can provide the best fix possible, it’s helpful to understand the “why” of a commit. The changes a commit produces the “what” and log messages (should) provide the “why”.
None of that is an argument for why a chaotic commit log is evidence that a project is not good or that the software is bad
That’s not the point I was making.
Moreover… I don’t know if you understand French but “gawdy” is probably a good adjective to describe the linked video at the beginning of the readme.
I wrote a github comment on that license issue: https://github.com/ms-jpq/coq_nvim/issues/15#issuecomment-900956033
Usually I don’t care too much, stuff like the WTFPL is a bit stupid but ultimately mostly harmless. But this “license” is really dangerous and could end up getting people hurt, if any part of it turns out to be enforceable.
Yeah this neovim completion engine has me shaking in my boots.
I find it all refreshing that this guy doesn’t care about using his github as a linkedin or about people who think his license is dangerous.
Are you making fun of the idea that giving up your rights to sue anyone ever can be dangerous? I don’t think I’m understanding you.
Interpreting this as “can’t sue for any reason ever” should definitely and obviously be unenforceable right? If that could ever work, that’s not an issue with the license, rather that’s a huge issue with the legal system in question.
I mean, I agree. It’s probably not enforceable. But I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer and neither is the author - and I’d not be willing to test it.
I have a lot of confidence that the “you can’t sue me” part of the license is unenforceable, so users of software under this license are probably safe. I assume. Again, not a lawyer. But the part where the license author promises not to ever sue the licensee? I have no idea how that works in court. Could a lawyer argue that the author of the license didn’t know what they were doing so that the license he wrote doesn’t apply to himself? Are there other protections in place to protect license authors from themselves? I really, really wouldn’t want to find out if I was in his shoes.
If there are any lawyers out there who could bring some clarity to this, I’d love to hear it. But the obvious practical solution is to pick a real license.
Yes
It has now been relicensed as GPL v3
Looks like the author has added a proper license: https://github.com/ms-jpq/coq_nvim/commit/61eab8120de8fde032284548e0034eb54c5037b1
Have you compared it to coc-nvim?
No. I’m using Neovim’s built in LSP.
I’ve used several different completion plugins for neovim over the years and have disliked nearly all of them.
nvim-compe is what I currently use and is the first solution that I’m actually sort of happy with. Unlike many other plugins in this space it isn’t trying to do everything (ahem, looking at you coc…). It’s fast enough that I haven’t been bothered by latency. The docs are reasonable and it wasn’t too complicated to configure.