Re: Tree-sitter maturity

[Björn Bidar]

tomas@tuxteam.de writes:

> On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 01:43:28AM -0500, Daniel Colascione wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On December 29, 2024 1:41:28 AM EST, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
>> >On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 11:21:10PM -0500, Daniel Colascione wrote:
>
> [including treesitter grammars in Emacs]
>
>> >> >But there are practical eeasons why we MIGHT not want to include those
>> >> >grammar files in Emacs at all.
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> Such as?
>> >
>> >More difficult to get rid of?
>> >
>> >Cheers
>> 
>> 
>> Can you elaborate?
>
> Sure. I observe that the whole treesitter culture is one far
> away from the Gnu culture. So I adopt a careful "wait and see"
> approach. I'll compile my Emacs without tree sitter support
> for as long as I don't understand the situation. Perhaps I'll
> want to avoid the whole thing forever, it depends.

>From my point of view the issue is more on the fire and forget approach
of many of these projects. Some projects (not just tree-sitter-grammars)
don't keep good practices by for example storing blobs in git, modifying
sources using git filters after checkout or using unstable in tree
dependencies.
The latter doesn't affect our situation right now since none of the
in-tree dependencies are used.


> This will become the more and more difficult the more TS grammars
> start displacing regular Emacs grammars.

For me the issue is more that it is easier to find support for niche
languages by trying to target a broader audiences which do not depend
on one specific editor to support.

Some modes might pop up for languages which were not supported by Emacs
before using tree-sitter grammars only without support for not using
tree-sitter.