hlargs.nvim VS tree-sitter

Am I correct to assume that hlargs.nvim is basically obsolete with semantic highlights?

Does this effectively remove the need for something like hlargs?

Do I need 'hlargs.nvim' plugin?

There is also the hlargs plugin, which achieves the exact same highlighting as the screenshot you posted using treesitter instead of the lsp. However, it appears csharp support has only recently been requested. You can follow it here. https://github.com/m-demare/hlargs.nvim/issues/56

I added the option, it requires some configuration you can find in :h hlargs-extras

hlargs does this. https://github.com/m-demare/hlargs.nvim

m-demare/hlargs.nvim: Highlight arguments of function/method, because some language servers don't support semantic tokens.

If you haven't seen the previous post, hlargs.nvim allows you to highlight functions' arguments (definitions and usages)

Something like these, with lambda functions, nested functions, etc

Here's the WIP, to try it out you just install it and run require('hlargs').setup() Thanks!

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.