git-blameall VS semantic-source

Thanks, I knew about -committerdate but not that you can set it as default sort, super useful. A few notes...

1. git columns gets real confusing if you have more data than fits the screen and you need to scroll. Numbers would help...

2. git maintenance sounds great but since I do a lot of rebases and stuff, I am worried: does this lose loose objects faster than gc would? I see gc is disabled but it's not clear.

3. Regarding git blame a little known but super useful script is https://github.com/gnddev/git-blameall . (I mean, it's so little known I myself needed to port it to Python 3 and I am no Python developer by any stretch.)

The author mentions git blame which is indeed an important tool but in more complex codebases it's entire possible the original introduction would require several steps because the code was refactored since. For this, git blameall is a wonderful and almost completely unknown utility. https://github.com/gnddev/git-blameall Yours truly did a quick Python 3 port this January, mostly using the automated toolset for it and the author, much to my surprise, committed it in a week despite the last commit was in 2013. So the project is not dead :)

Does anyone know whether git blameall https://github.com/ddev/git-blameall is easy to do with Fossil? It's a lesser known tool but I found it incredibly useful (hence why I did the Python 3, mostly automated tools but still).

One production example I know: GitHub code navigation is written in Haskell https://github.com/github/semantic

ah, easy. it's because support has not been added into https://github.com/github/semantic which is the tech that powers the GitHub UI. Adding support is pretty easy/mainly glue code [1] that imports the tree sitter API.

[1] https://github.com/github/semantic/blob/793a876ae45d38a6bd17...

GitHub used Haskell for implementing Semantic, a command-line tool for parsing, analyzing, and comparing source code.

As far as engineering effort, you can read this GitHub comment for an overview of where we’d like to take the project in the future. The tl;dr here is that the open sum type view of the world made it very concise to fold over syntax trees (since such a view of data is ultimately unityped, recursion schemes Just Work), but the tradeoff thus associated—namely, that you have to parse a concrete syntax tree into an open-sum view (a complicated and painful-to-read process), that you can never really be sure how a given syntax tree is shaped, and that the types don’t help you nearly as much as they could—proved to be too onerous to deal with. Going forward, we’re generating syntax types from the AST once per target language, and working on an abstraction (probably via this generated code; I made five separate efforts at using Generics for this, and failed every time) that recovers at least some of the convenience of recursion schemes. It turns out that recursion schemes over a mutually recursive syntax tree—as pretty much every language’s syntax trees are, in practice—are pretty much an unsolved problem, especially when extended to languages like TypeScript, which have hundreds of different syntax nodes.

Meanwhile their Tree-Sitter-based semantic parser[1] looks abandoned. There is even rotting for years pull request[2] adding support of the same stack graphs into it.

[1] https://github.com/github/semantic

[2] https://github.com/github/semantic/pull/535

The semantic team at GitHub uses it for statically analyzing the dozens of languages that end up in GitHub repositories: https://github.com/github/semantic/blob/eaf13783838861fe5eb6cd46d59354774a8eb88d/docs/why-haskell.md

Yesterday I was looking for some examples of projects using tree-sitter (which is C) when I found GitHub's semantic, used to analyze and compare source code, and written in Haskell: https://github.com/github/semantic/