reagents VS semgrep

The 1978 paper proposes a reasonable set of primitives and then walks through prose examples with them. The book proposes roughly the same primitives (channels are the big change, but stop is barely in the paper) and describes them in a formal notation for state machines. It's the difference between a sketch of a plausible idea and writing down the mathematics.

Related though much later, ocaml https://github.com/ocaml-multicore/reagents observed that the send/recv primitives make less sense than a swap primitive. Between occam and the current ocaml effort, concurrent ML is the same sort of model with the details really well thought through (e.g. a thread executing stop gets garbage collected).

Still early days, but I had done some exploratory work in the past on Reagents, a composable lock-free library [1]. Now that OCaml 5 is released, we're reviving this work.

It's semantics is weaker than STM -- unlike STM, it doesn't provide serializability but Reagents can compile down to multi-word compare and swap operations, which can be implemented with the help of hardware transactions (when present) or efficient software implementations of it [2]. Hence, Reagent programs should be faster than STM.

[1] https://github.com/ocaml-multicore/reagents

Semgrep OSS Owner/Maintainer: Semgrep Age: First release on GitHub on February 6th, 2020 License: GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1

Semgrep - https://semgrep.dev

For the SAST stage, I used SonarQube tool. SonarQube is an open-source platform developed by SonarSource for continuous inspection of code quality to perform automatic reviews with static analysis of code to detect bugs and code smells on more than 30 programming languages. I preferred SonarQube instead of other SAST tools because it has a detailed documentation and plugins about integration with Jenkins and SonarQube works with Java projects pretty well. Of course you can similar multi-language-supported tools such as Semgrep or language-specific tools such as Bandit.

> Not sure I understand your point.

The problem is using Treesitter (for syntax highlighting and "semantic movements") and an LSP at the same time. So if your language has a LSP, using Treesitter additionally is redundant at best and introduces inconcistency at worst.

I'm not talking about using Treesitter as the parser for the LSP.

> Most popular languages have language-specific tools

I'd say even less popular langauges like Coq^H^H^HRocq, Lean 4, Koka, Idris, Unison, ... have their "own" tools, I do not know of a language that uses a Treesitter parser in its LSP, but I do know about tools like https://semgrep.dev/ (written in OCaml) and Github's code search which use Treesitter.

Well, when I seach for "semgrep", I get a very nice corporate landing page with a "Book Demo" button. Which is a level of hassle that just isn't worth it for smaller teams, because "Book Demo" usually means "We're going to try to do a dance to see how much money we can extract from you." Which smaller teams may only want to do for a handful of key tools.

(4 years ago, I was more willing to put up with enterprise licensing. But in the last two years, I've seen way too many enterprise vendors try to squeeze every penny they can get from existing clients. An enterprise sales process now often means "Expect 30% annual price hikes once you're in too deep to back out.")

There's also an open source "semgrep" project here: https://github.com/semgrep/semgrep. But this seems to be basically a vulernability scanner, going by the README.

Whereas AST-grep seems to focus heavily on things like:

1. One-off searching: "Search my tree for this pattern."

2. Refactoring: "Replace this pattern with this other pattern."

AST-grep also includes a vulnerability scanning mode like semgrep.

It's possible that semgrep also has nice support for (1) and (2), but it isn't clearly visible on their corporate landing page or the first open source README I found.

7. Semgrep