[juxtapose]

I agree with giving users control, but unfortunately I cannot agree with the move to c-ts-mode. And I cannot disagree more with associating CC mode with "legacy" when it's objectively better than the other alternative, at least currently. I don't think Emacs developers are doing users a favor in this specific case.

CC Mode is extremely capable. Over the years it has developed to such a maturity that almost all needs can be satisfied, and performance has never been a problem for me. It contains very few, if any, bugs, that affect my use.

On the other hand, the tree-sitter major modes are not at al production-ready to be considered as default. For one thing, the whole highlighting can break for complex macros and ifdefs. (I'd be glad to be enlightened whether it's theoretically possible to fix at all -- can you correctly highlight ifdefs without doing semantic analysis with the help of a compiler?) For another, CC mode has a feature called c-guess that can quickly analyze an existing source buffer and generate a format definition which proves extremely valuable. Alas, c-ts-mode has zero support for it.

I had high hopes for tree-sitter. I turned on tree-sitter modes for all my coding when it was out, and now I have zero enabled. They still have a long way to go and I don't want to spend time debugging emacs code at work. :-)

Tree-sitter is not a panacea. Fast parsing alone is not what makes a good major mode.

[fasa99]

As someone whose pronouns are C-programmer/vim, I feel unsafe.

My living nightmare would be to develop highly verbose Java programs in an editor with 999 gorillion different "modes" with seemingly random names.

"oh, you're making an singletonfactoryfacade in Treesat-19 mode, you'll need to be using CCC-mode, treesat-19 mode is for factoryencapsulationfactory patterns"