lady-deirdre VS tree-sitter

Well, my personal experience was in the opposite direction actually.

I used to use combinators-based approach without Lex/Syn separation (aka PEGs) for a long time. But then I came up to understanding that the separation approach is actually better in performance. And also that working and debugging of the Token sequences while writing parser manually is just more handy (at least for me).

But this is my personal experience of course. I do believe too that it all depends on the goal, and parsers micro-optimizations is not that much critical in many cases, and that combinators approach actually works quite well too.

As of Nom, I can say that it works quite well. But I think that the it's performance gains stem from the fact that Rust is a systems-based PL, and it optimizes function combinations just better than, let say, JavaScript or Python.

In my incremental parsers library Lady Deirdre I utilize Lex/Syn separation, and the LL(1) recursive-descend parsing, and it shows much better performance than in Tree-Sitter at least on relatively big files [1].

[1] https://github.com/Eliah-Lakhin/lady-deirdre/tree/master/wor...

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.