zen-mode.nvim VS tree-sitter

I use this sometimes and it's pretty nice: https://github.com/folke/zen-mode.nvim

This is super cool, I've been using https://github.com/folke/zen-mode.nvim for some time but what caught my attention were the side buffers for notes. I took a look at your configuration options and was wondering if you had thought about configuring the width by a fraction of the total view width?

I went from https://github.com/junegunn/goyo.vim to https://github.com/folke/zen-mode.nvim and now this

You could define yourself a variable whenever :ZenMode is toggled and check for said variable (or have a look here if anything is returned by the function is_open()).

Exactly right! I use Arch Linux with i3. My terminal emulators are alacritty and cool-retro-term, depending on the mood. For writing I use neovim with the zen-mode plugin.

However, I want to style this a bit more maybe have a better-looking tree on startup. One of the solutions I could think of is to open the nvim-tree in zen-mode. This ends up looking like this.

folke/zen-mode.nvim - Distraction-free mode

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.