Bond VS semantic-source

Huh, wonder why they didn’t use MS’ orotobuf clone, bond: https://github.com/microsoft/bond

When I was at MS, it was definitely preferred over protobuf. IIRC it was also used internally as the wire format for gRPC. I guess LinkedIn is still kind of doing their own thing.

Microsoft uses Haskell in Bond, a cross-platform framework for working with schematized data.

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...

I believe they use semantic (Haskell program that uses tree-sitter) for navigation: https://github.com/github/semantic

So the answer may be that semantic does not yet have support for the language in question.

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.

I'm just curious. It seems there hasn't been much activity in https://github.com/github/semantic Is GitHub still using semantic it to power some code navigation features? Has it been abandoned or is there some successor project that has taken its place? Is there any writeup / lessons learned about this project?

is this from Github semantic (https://github.com/github/semantic)?

Seems very suspicious since it’s the same goal using the same technologies. The latest commit is 4mo ago but i assume they have a closed-source version they’ve been working on.

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