I am nobody, but FWIW, I'm in favor of using "treesit" instead of "ts" in
the mode names. Even if tree sitter had a higher profile than typescript
(NB: typescript's is in fact much higher, and this is unlikely to change no
matter how much adoption tree sitter sees), the unambiguous naming scheme
is preferable. Does anyone really mind the five additional characters?

On Fri, Nov 25, 2022, 9:39 AM Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> wrote:

>
>
> On 25 November 2022 17:25:09 CET, "Daniel Martín" <mardani29@yahoo.es>
> wrote:
> >"T.V Raman" <raman@google.com> writes:
> >
> >> also the   name "ts" as part of tree-sitter is an unfortunate
> >> confusion since ts-mode is for typescript.
> >>
> >> I initally wrongly assumed that ts-mode was some kind of global mode
> >> that would enable tree-support for all supported modes, given the
> >> names c-ts-mode etc.
> >
> >This is a good point.  The Tree-sitter Elisp library itself and its
> >commands already use the "treesit" abbreviation consistently.  We're
> >still on time to rename the new language modes to c-treesit-mode, and so
> >on.  Thoughts?
> >
>
> I'd rather change ts-mode to typescript-mode or typescript-ts-mode. But we
> can discuss names, of course :-)
>
> Even better would be some construct we've discussed many times the last
> months: not letting a specific implementation "own" a major mode name. So
> c-mode could be powered by cc mode implementation _or_ treesit.el
> implementation, but not a merged thing.
>
> To me the natural progression would be to keep name as-is, then later when
> we have such a construct just delete the *-ts-modes.
>
> For Emacs 30 or 31.
>
> Theo
>
>