AUCTeX vs. LSP (Digestif vs. TexLab)

Dear community, AUCTeX and cdlatex are tried and tested packages in supporting the composition of TeX-documents. However, with the advent of LSP-servers, like [TexLab](https://github.com/latex-lsp/texlab) and [digestif](https://github.com/astoff/digestif), there is another (viable?) option to compose TeX-documents. What are your experiences with LSP-servers for composing LaTeX? Do you prefer those over AUCTeX? If so, why? Thanks in advance for sharing your experiences.

| Do you prefer those over AUCTeX I've started using emacs some three years ago, and have been writing LaTeX ever since. Not once did I ever understand what AUCTeX even does. There's not even a "AUCTeX" mode. However, I did try to get it to work. And I just couldn't get, what using LaTeX-mode gave me over the regular latex-mode? Meanwhile, I downloaded eglot alongside digestif, and haven't had any problems.

auctex provides enhanced versions of `tex-mode` and `latex-mode`, which automatically replace the vanilla ones. all of the commands for environments, keeping track of macros, bibliography, compiling, synctex, the way things are displayed, and more, are features of auctex. it's pretty awesome!

I don't know about LaTeX specifically, but LSP in emacs can be a bit of a pain. It takes time/effort to setup and sometimes doesn't work as expected. I'll always go with the more dedicated package if available.

Thanks, I'm using an LSP-server for python development. I am quite satisfied so far and therefore wondering, whether an LSP-server is beneficial for creating TeX-documents.

AUCTeX is indeed really good, but is an LSP-server maybe even better?

so i was also thinking about using lsp for latex, but haven't tried it. but i will try it soon, too. you can just try it out, as you can use both lsp-mode and the auctex functionality, since lsp mode is a minor mode!

I use both AUCTeX and LSP at the same time to make up for their shortcomings. Most notably, I hate that AUCTeX cannot build documents without putting garbage everywhere (that is, just place the files in a separate build directory), a feature that latexmk has supported for 30 years. I'm not sure why one would need a elisp-reimplementation of latexmk (but worse) anyway.

Sounds interesting. Do you use auctex-latxmk? Would you mind to share your config?

AUCTeX can do things like prompt for image files when inserting includegraphics, and has a way for you to write Emacs support for your own macros. LSPs seem to support certain commands and types very well, but not others.

Thanks for your experiencea. Has LSP anything that AUCTeX misses?