deadgrep VS tree-sitter

Deadgrep (uses ripgrep and evil-collection has a binding) takes me to my happy place -

https://github.com/Wilfred/deadgrep

theres a package for this that’s god tier: deadgrep

this is cool too Wilfred/deadgrep: fast, friendly searching with ripgrep and Emacs

rg.el or deadgrep: Emacs interfaces to ripgrep, a grep-like tool that is very fast. This lets us search across a large number of files for a pattern of text. The disadvantage of searching for text is that if you are looking for the method called foo and there are hundreds of them that exist, it can be hard to know which one you really want. On the other hand, at the scale and complexity that you are talking about, I can imagine that more IDE-like tools just start failing.

Yes in this area (text search) there is many alternatives. Wilfred Hughes (author of deadgrep) has listed them in: https://github.com/Wilfred/deadgrep/blob/master/docs/ALTERNATIVES.md

Anyone interested in this should also check out deadgrep: https://github.com/Wilfred/deadgrep

Deadgrep does this, IIUC (I use ripgrep.el instead, but I think deadgrep does something like what you want)

deadgrep is an interface to ripgrep.

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.