[jakobnissen]

The boring answer is that I don’t use huge dependencies that takes minutes to compile, and I don’t lean on the LSP - I tend to put more effort in reading the code.

In my experience you really gotta work with the tools the language gives you. Julia gives you Revise, so it’s a bit of a handicap not using it. Maybe analogous to writing Rust without an LSP.

I get that leaning on the LSP can become a habit, and also that the Julia LSP is quite poor, but I find it wild that rapid iteration for you is faster in Rust. I write Rust as well and can’t imagine how that would be the case.

[kmaitreys]

A lot of people have focussed on the LSP in their replies when it is was only one of the problems I mentioned.

rust-analyzer is a great LSP and paired with clippy it can teach you the language itself. Also, writing numerical code is extremely easy in Rust. I can write code and just run cargo run to see the output. Julia, on the other hand, forced a REPL-based workflow which never has made sense to me. REPL-based workflow makes sense when you just want to do some script stuff. But when writing a code which will run for a long duration on a HPC? I don't get it. Part of the problem is I'm not "holding it correctly", but again, out of the box experience isn't good. You define a struct and later add or remove a field from it. Often you'll get an error because Revise.jl didn't recompile things. It was a sub-par experience and I was hoping to people would share their dev workflow in more detail

[leephillips]

And yet Julia is used for large-scale simulations on giant HPC machines and Rust is not.

Recent versions of Revise let you redefine structs in the REPL.

You are not forced to use the REPL, ever. It’s a fantastic convenience, however.

My dev workflow is to write my code in Neovim, sometimes with a REPL attached to the editor to try out code snippets. I don’t need or use LSPs. I do enjoy the Aerial plugin, which pops up an outline of my code for easy navigation.