[temp123789246]

Have there been any notable innovations in parsing since this was written?

[thechao]

Aycock & Horspool came up with a 'practical' method for implementing Earley parsing (conversion to a state-machine) that has pretty humorously good performance delta over "naive" Earley, and is still reasonable to implement. Joop Leo figured out how to get the worst-case of Earley parsing down to either O(n) (left-recursive, non-ambiguous) or O(n^2) (right-recursive, non-ambiguous). That means the Earley algorithm is only O(n^3) on right-recursive, ambiguous grammars; and, if you're doing that, you're holding your language wrong.

A somewhat breathless description of all of this is in the Marpa parser documentation:

    https://jeffreykegler.github.io/Marpa-web-site/

In practice, I've found that computers are so fast, that with just the Joop Leo optimizations, 'naive' Earley parsing is Good Enough™:

    https://loup-vaillant.fr/tutorials/earley-parsing/

[marcusf]

An extremely layman answer is that most interesting innovation in parsing in relatively modern times has happened seems to be in the context of IDE's. I.e. incremental, high-performance parsing to support syntax highlighting, refactoring, etc. etc.

(I may be talking out of my ass here.)

[ReleaseCandidat]

Actually the most important step of parsers (as even non-incremental, slow (or better: not fast) parsers are fast enough) is error recovery (error resilience) from syntax errors (mostly half written or half deleted code). What is time consuming is e.g. type-checking. Semantic checking in general, like exhaustiveness checks of pattern matches, syntax checking is fast.

[dboreham]

In the days of punched cards error recovery was important.

[o11c]

Not sure, but I at least am certainly aware of possibilities that such writeups exclude.

In particular, you can do (a subset of) the following in sequence:

* write your own grammar in whatever bespoke language you want

* compose those grammars into a single grammar

* generate a Bison grammar from that grammar

* run `bison --xml` instead of actually generating code

* read the XML file and implement your own (trivial) runtime so you can easily handle ownership issues

In particular, I am vehemently opposed to the idea of implementing parsers separately using some non-proven tool/theory, since that way leads to subtle grammar incompatibilities later.

[sse]

The one I'm most excited about is improved error recovery:

https://soft-dev.org/pubs/html/diekmann_tratt__dont_panic/

https://drops.dagstuhl.de/storage/00lipics/lipics-vol166-eco...

[danielvaughn]

I'm not super familiar with the space, but tree-sitter seems to take an interesting approach in that they are an incremental parser. So instead of re-parsing the entire document on change, it only parses the affected text, thereby making it much more efficient for text editors.

I don't know if that's specific to tree-sitter though, I'm sure there are other incremental parsers. I have to say that I've tried ANTLR and tree-sitter, and I absolutely love tree-sitter. It's a joy to work with.

[IshKebab]

In my experience incremental parsing doesn't really make much sense. Non-incremental parsing can easily parse huge documents in milliseconds.

Also Tree Sitter only does half the parsing job - you get a tree on nodes, but you have to do your own parse of that tree to get useful structures out.

I prefer Chumsky or Nom which go all the way.

[danielvaughn]

Ah interesting, yeah I did spend quite a bit of time parsing their AST, which turned out to be harder than writing the grammar itself. I’ll look into those two projects.

[ubolonton_]

What do you mean by “parse of that tree to get useful structures out”? Can you provide some concrete examples?

[IshKebab]

Yeah suppose you write a simple config language like:

  let a = 12;
  let b = a + 5;
  ...

Tree-Sitter will give you a tree like

   Node(type="file", range=..., children=[
     Node(name="let_item", range=... children=[
       Node(name="identifier", range=...)
       Node(name="expression", range=..., children=[
         Node(name="integer_literal", range=...)
   ...

Whereas Nom/Chumsky will give you:

    struct File {
      let_items: Vec<LetItem>,
      ..
    };
    struct LetItem {
      name: String,
      expression: Expression,
    };
    ...

Essentially Tree-Sitter's output is untyped, and ad-hoc, whereas Nom/Chumksy's is fully validated and statically typed.

In some cases Tree-Sitter's output is totally fine (e.g. for syntax highlighting, or rough code intelligence). But if you're going to want to do stuff with the data like actually process/compile it, or provide 100% accurate code intelligence then I think Nom/Chumksy make more sense.

The downsides of Nom/Chunksy are: pretty advanced Rust with lots of generics (error messages can be quite something!), and keeping track of source code spans (where did the `LetItem` come from) can be a bit of a pain, whereas Tree-Sitter does that automatically.

[ubolonton_]

Ok, understood. I was confused by the phrase "parse of that tree".

Tree-sitter's output is closer to being "dynamic" than "untyped", though.

It's not too hard to build a layer on top of tree-sitter (out of the core lib) to generate statically typed APIs. I haven't felt the need for that yet, but it may be worth exploring.

> actually process/compile it

At work, I built a custom embedded DSL, using tree-sitter for parsing. It has worked well enough so far. The dynamically-typed nature of tree-sitter actually made it easier to port the DSL to multiple runtimes.

> provide 100% accurate code intelligence

Totally agree that tree-sitter cannot be used for this, if we are aiming for 100%.

[danielvaughn]

Not the person you’re asking, but basically anything that needs to happen after the initial parsing stage. So you convert your raw text into an AST, but there’s usually some processing you need to do after that.

Maybe you need to optimize the data, maybe you need to do some error checking. Lots of code is syntactically valid but not semantically valid, and usually those semantic errors will persist into the AST (in my limited experience).

[ReleaseCandidat]

> [incremental parsing] I don't know if that's specific to tree-sitter though

No, it isn't. And incremental parsing is older than 2011 too (like at least the 70s).

For example: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/357062.357066

[troupo]

Yes. You roll your own manual parser. It's not as difficult as people make it out to be.

[davidkellis]

These are not new, but my takeaways from https://tratt.net/laurie/blog/2020/which_parsing_approach.ht... and https://rust-analyzer.github.io/blog/2020/09/16/challeging-L... are to embrace various forms of LR parsing. https://github.com/igordejanovic/parglare is a very capable GLR parser, and I've been keeping a close eye on it for use in my projects.

[bsder]

Yes, we resdesigned our programming languages to be easy to parse with limited lookahead.

[norir]

I feel that most of the time the two options are presented as either write a handwritten parser or use a parser generator. A nice third way is to write a custom parser generator for the language you wish to parse. Handwritten parsers do tend to get unwieldy and general purpose parser generators can have inscrutable behavior for any specific language.

Because the grammar for a parser generator is usually much simpler than most general purpose programming languages, it is typically relatively straightforward to handwrite a parser for it.

[dboreham]

You could write a language with which to specify that custom parser. Oh wait...