PHP Parser VS tree-sitter

Interesting. One of the reasons I stopped considering Rector is because of how memory, CPU, and time intensive it is for a non-trivial project. Instead I've been using Nikita's PHP Parser directly and getting much better results even though it isn't multi-threaded out of the box.

nikic/PHP-Parser uses a Bison equivalent for PHP parsing. See the grammar file https://github.com/nikic/PHP-Parser/blob/4.x/grammar/php7.y.

Maybe nikic/PHP-Parser is an alternative. If you only need to tokenizer part, PHP has an extension too.

nikic/PHP-Parser

Code parsing. Many linters and code builders use php-parser. It uses YACC (analog Bison) to build AST.

The PR in PHP-Parser is already on the way ↓ https://github.com/nikic/PHP-Parser/pull/834

I see there is the https://github.com/nikic/PHP-Parser

It's good idea. But something strange. Php was made as language which embedded to HTML. And how will it work without open and close tags? Instead of parsing and replacing source code as string you might use parser e.g https://github.com/nikic/PHP-Parser

I wish there was a more universal format for parsers, but I just don't think there enough people who know their stuff.

Take PHP, a language that a lot of people use: the tree-sitter-php extension doesn't support features added in 2019, let alone features added towards the end of 2020.

If you want an up-to-date PHP parser, there's really only one open-source parser[0] that's accurate enough to be used on PHP codebases old and new, and it's written in PHP. Then if you want to parse in a robust fashion you have to adopt a number of hacks to get everything working.

I hadn't encountered LSIF before – can GitHub be configured to use those maps?

[0] https://github.com/nikic/PHP-Parser

I learned from a google search that these days upstream tree-sitter provides WebAssembly bindings.

Source: https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter/tree/master/lib/b...

NPM: https://www.npmjs.com/package/web-tree-sitter

Download from the latest Github release: js file (https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter/releases/download...) and wasm file (https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter/releases/download...)

Tree-sitter optimizes for performance (to use in editors), not for correctness. In fact even TS' core developers advocate for not bothering too much with correctness of grammars[1]. I imagine this constraint would be a deal-breaker for GitHub or anyone else in their position.

[1] https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter/issues/130#issuec...

This is a plugin that provides a simple way to use the tree-sitter in Neovim and also provides functionalities like highlighting, etc.

From the tree-sitter side, I am tracking https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter/issues/1942

Is tree-sitter really slower than TextMate grammars? Some benchmarks indicate that this isn't really the case [1]. On the other hand, breaking parse trees is a real issue, because the error-recovery in tree-sitter is pretty rudimentary [2][3], but as you said, it's not an issue for Shiki.

Several TextMate grammars suffer from inaccuracy bugs, and issues of maintainability. Perhaps the biggest hindrance in the adoption of tree-sitter, is that the most popular editor, VSCode, still doesn't support it.

[1]: https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/pull/161479

[2]: https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter/issues/1870

[3]: https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter/issues/224

u/lewis6991 I think the biggest performance gain was made by tree-sitter itself: https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter/pull/2085

I asked on the repo's discussions but responses are limited and not explanatory (I'm not shaming anyone here, discussions aren't a place for detailed how-tos and documentations anyway).

The following discussion here. TS query cannot be incremental, that is why I regard it as design fault.

Hi, so I've recently decided to give Neovim yet another try, this time using some predefined plugins with kickstart.nvim, for syntax it uses tree-sitter.