[sundarurfriend]

tree-sitter's design has potential, but my impression is that even after all these years, it is yet to be realized. The speed claims turned out to be largely overstated in practice, for the general variety of usage (rather than single task benchmarks or special cases). And the claim with the grammar system was that, given such a coherent system rather than the much-hated regex parsing, people would be able to write better grammars that are less prone to edge case problems and be less buggy. And maybe that's true in cases like this where someone gets paid to write the grammar and maintain it, but in most common cases, the actual quality of the grammars turn out to be much the same, but with more possibility of regression or breakage. It's possible that in ten years' time, tree-sitter will clearly be the way to go, with more polish all around, but at this point it doesn't feel like an easy strong recommend over the traditional parsing systems.

[analog_daddy]

I like the very idea of tree sitter and even listening to the first talk video by the creator was interesting. However, it has been big barrier for me to write grammar for it for a custom lisp based DSL used in industry (called SKILL; think lisp but with support for both C and lisp styles syntax), and the regex based syntax shines well here since iterating over it does not need recompile and also is incremental independent rules compared to the syntax tree based with hierarchy.