Ask HN: Programmers who don't use autocomplete/LSP, how do you do it?

Hacker News Discussion ↗

Programmers are split over how much to rely on modern tooling like autocomplete, language servers, and AI assistants versus bare-bones editors and command-line search. Advocates of minimal tooling say it forces deeper understanding of code, reduces distractions, and builds durable skills that transfer across environments and languages. Supporters of rich IDE features counter that go‑to‑definition, refactoring tools, inline docs, and static analysis are essential for navigating large, complex codebases efficiently, arguing the real problem is not the tools themselves but how thoughtfully they’re used.

How People Work Without Autocomplete/LSP

  • Many use plain Vim/Neovim/Emacs (often near‑stock) plus CLI tools: grep/rg, find/fd, fzf, ctags/etags, sometimes cscope.
  • Typical setup: editor in one pane, shells in others for compilers, linters, tests, REPLs, watching logs, docs or browser on another screen.
  • Navigation techniques: search for definitions by name, use tags, or maintain mental maps of file layout and naming conventions.
  • Some rely only on syntax highlighting and auto‑indent; others even disable highlighting and all pop‑ups.

Perceived Benefits of Minimal Tooling

  • Forces deeper understanding of languages, libraries and codebases; people say they remember more and can reason “offline” without tools.
  • Encourages better naming, file organization and smaller, clearer modules so navigation via search is enough.
  • Reduces visual noise: many find auto‑popups, autoclosing brackets, inline warnings, etc., break concentration and “flow.”
  • Some deliberately avoid heavy tools while learning a new language to build stronger fundamentals.

Arguments For LSP/Autocomplete

  • Strong support for LSP in large, complex or long‑lived codebases; features like go‑to‑definition, find‑usages, refactors and early error feedback are seen as huge time‑savers.
  • Particularly valued in verbose ecosystems (Java, C#, C++, AWS SDKs, ORMs) and for unfamiliar APIs where remembering everything is unrealistic.
  • Some see LSP as primarily a discovery and understanding tool, not a typing accelerator.
  • Others argue skipping such tools on big projects is unnecessary self‑handicapping, likened to refusing CAD in engineering.

Copilot and AI Tools

  • Opinions are sharply split:
    • Fans claim large productivity gains for boilerplate, scripts, tests, glue code and “inline documentation,” plus faster iteration on designs.
    • Critics find suggestions distracting, often wrong, stylistically inconsistent, and say they reduce upfront thinking and long‑term skill.
    • Several note extra review burden and fear over‑reliance will erode the ability to spot AI mistakes.

Personal Preference, Scale, and Neurodivergence

  • Many emphasize it’s not moral or skill‑based: different brains and contexts (e.g., neurodivergence, remote servers, niche languages, huge monorepos) favor different setups.
  • There is tension between “artisan” pride in minimal tooling and “power‑tool” pragmatism; multiple commenters warn against turning either stance into dogma or gatekeeping.