instaparse VS organice

Caveats: I've used nom in anger, chumsky hardly at all, and tree-sitter only for prototyping. I'm using it for parsing a DSL, essentially a small programming language.

The essential difference between nom/chomsky and tree-sitter is that the former are libraries for constructing parsers out of smaller parsers, whereas tree-sitter takes a grammar specification and produces a parser. This may seem small at first, but is a massive difference in practice.

As far as ergonomics go, that's a rather subjective question. On the surface, the parser combinator libraries seem easier to use. They integrate well with the the host language, so you can stay in the same environment. But this comes with a caveat: parser combinators are a functional programming pattern, and Rust is only kind of a functional language, if you treat it juuuuust right. This will make itself known when your program isn't quite right; I've seen type errors that take up an entire terminal window or more. It's also very difficult to decompose a parser into functions. In the best case, you need to write your functions to be generic over type constraints that are subtle and hard to write. (again, if you get this wrong, the errors are overwhelming) I often give up and just copy the code. I have at times believed that some of these types are impossible to write down in a program (and can only exist in the type inferencer), but I don't know if that's actually true.

deep breath

Tree-sitter's user interface is rather different. You write your grammar in a javascript internal dsl, which gets run and produces a json file, and then a code generator reads that and produces C source code (I think the codegen is now written in rust). This is a much more roundabout way of getting to a parser, but it's worth it because: (1) tree-sitter was designed for parsing programming languages while nom very clearly was not, and (2) the parsers it generates are REALLY GOOD. Tree-sitter knows operator precedence, where nom cannot do this natively (there's a PR open for the next version: https://github.com/Geal/nom/pull/1362) Tree-sitter's parsing algorithm (GLR) is tolerant to recursion patterns that will send a parser combinator library off into the weeds, unless it uses special transformations to accommodate them.

It might sound like I'm shitting on nom here, but that's not the goal. It's a fantastic piece of work, and I've gotten a lot of value from it. But it's not for parsing programming languages. Reach for nom when you want to parse a binary file or protocol.

As for chumsky: the fact that it's a parser combinator library in Rust means that it's going to be subject to a lot of the same issues as nom, fundamentally. That's why I'm targeting tree-sitter next.

There's no reason tree-sitter grammars couldn't be written in an internal DSL, perhaps in parser-combinator style (https://github.com/engelberg/instaparse does this). That could smooth over a lot of the rough edges.

Sure, you can use https://github.com/Engelberg/instaparse to create parser for any language you want, or simply create DSL in basic clojure types, like vectors.

Enter org-parser! It is indeed such a thing implemented already! Remember the magical parser I mentioned above? It is already implemented here Engelberg/instaparse too (in a Lisp)! org-parser is built on top of it by providing a formal specification for org-mode in the EBN form. Any proof that org-parser works? Indeed, there is the celebrated organice which is built on top of it. Kudos for 200ok-ch!

You might enjoy checking out Instaparse, a Clojure library. Its project page reads, “What if context-free grammars were as easy to use as regular expressions?”

It’s not over-promising, either. I went from never having heard of it before to getting complete and correct parse trees of some ancient JSP Expression Language in about 20 minutes. Most of that time was spent typing in the BNF description that I could find only in an image.

https://github.com/Engelberg/instaparse

Instaparse sounds pretty close to what you're looking for assuming you're ok being limited to context-free grammars.

It is in EBNF, with some alternate conventions. It follows the syntax found in here, which I think is pretty easy to get behind.

Another way to solve it is to load the grammar directly into instaparse, specify the start rule :0 and count the successful applications of the parser to the messages:

With organice you can host your notes on Gitlab for free and the backend becomes "git". You get web apps for Windows, iOS and Android.

https://organice.200ok.ch/

Sorry, but _what exactly_ «it seems to do» from your point of view?

My «second brain» now is almost 300Mb of text, pictures, sound files, PDF and other stuff. As I already mentioned, it contains tables, mathematical formulae, sheet music, cross-references, code samples, UML diagrams and graphs in Graphviz format. It is versioned, indexed by local search engine, analyzed by AI assistant and shared between many computers and mobile devices. And (last but not least) it works: it allows me to solve my tasks way more faster than with the assistant of external, non-personalized tools (like ChatGPT, StackExchange or Google).

I know no tools for all this tasks except org-mode. Well, maybe Evernote in the 2010-s was something similar — but with less features, with more bugs and with worse interface.

Personal note-taking _is_ a complex task per se (well, at least for someone like typical HN visitor). I've seen many note-taking tools, that were ridiculously featureless, stupid and inconvenient because they were _not_ complex enough.

> Sure if one wants to do emacs-gardening it is fine.

1)You can use org-mode outside Emacs. See for example Logseq (https://logseq.com/), organice (https://organice.200ok.ch/) or EasyOrg.

2)Org-mode works in Emacs out of the box, you don't need any «emacs-gardening» to use org-mode.

3)The term «Emacs-gardening» itself sound a bit like hate-speech for me. The complexity of Emacs customization is overrated, mostly due to opinions of people who never used Emacs or used it in the previous millennium.

organice?

organice is a user friendly, cloud backed up, lightweight front end to orgmode (or based on).

https://organice.200ok.ch/

organice is a more active fork of org-web that can also sync with GitLab or WebDAV. I'm currently syncing it with my personal Nextcloud server.

If you just need the basic syntax highlighting provided by the VS Code plugin then use that. If you want the full power of org mode then go with Emacs. If you want something in between then maybe EasyOrg https://easyorgmode.com/ or Organice https://github.com/200ok-ch/organice will do.

You could try “organice”: https://github.com/200ok-ch/organice , it runs on any browser including Mobile Safari, so it should work on iPads. I haven’t tried it on Android nor Android-based tablets. It does work on iPhone.