taplo VS pest

You might find useful this: https://github.com/tamasfe/taplo

Some CLI tools have man pages and in such situations like writing completion spec, people usually use them as a source to learn about the tool and its subcommands options, etc. (Usually they have the best reputation for being the most accurate source of information). Though, the tool I chose to write the completion spec, taplo, did not have any manual entry pages. Even better! I found their website and documentation which was really helpful.

Because I targeted WASM, I needed to roll my own. It simply needs async functions as handlers and a world state that is passed along with the requests to the handlers. (example here). You can use it as an example, the code is not the prettiest, but I'll happily answer questions.

And some related parser tools: - https://github.com/kevinmehall/rust-peg - https://github.com/pest-parser/pest - https://github.com/lalrpop/lalrpop

I had recently completed the first year of my Computer Science class at school and will begin my second year soon. My schools' class forces the use of Java programming language, and I absolutely hated it. So, over the course of a little less than a month, I wrote my own programming language, in Rust (objectively best programming language), using pest, to be as similar to Rust as possible, but compiling to Java.

I second pest.rs. Using it is fairly intuitive and there's also a live playground on their website which is great for quickly developing and testing your AST (abstract syntax tree) parser for whatever language you're implementing.

This is where you'll run into trouble. People who write parsing-related Rust crates generally write things like pest that expect their syntax to be defined completely at compile time so the parser can be run through the compiler's optimizers for best performance.

Give https://pest.rs a try.

For now I have used pest to generate an AST that borrows from the given input. But if I can manage to make the parser generic over the return type it may be worth a refactoring.