Re: Tree-sitter maturity

[Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org>]

On December 29, 2024 3:59:50 AM EST, Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Dec 29, 2024, at 12:41 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2024 03:01:44 -0500
>>> From: Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org>
>>> 
>>>>> Enforcing this policy will just mean that Emacs doesn't support *at all* some languages out of the box and will put even more wind in the sails of soft forks like Doom. Tree sitter language descriptions are free software. There's no reason not to rely on them.
>>>> 
>>>> We started with this concept of adding tree-sitter based modes to
>>>> auto-mode-alist by default, but found that people who don't have the
>>>> grammar installed didn't appreciate seeing the warnings about the
>>>> missing grammars.  So Emacs 29 made these modes optional, activated
>>>> only by an explicit user action.  Emacs 30 still does that.
>>>> 
>>>> We are currently discussing how to improve this (see the thread Re:
>>>> Turning on/off tree-sitter modes, which seems to have stalled lately).
>>>> But until the grammar libraries are ubiquitous, and we can rely on
>>>> them being present on most systems, I think we will still need some
>>>> user say-so before enabling tree-sitter based modes.
>>> 
>>> Wouldn't vendoring the grammars, and maybe even tree sitter itself, silence the complaints about the warnings? Tree sitter is pure algorithmic code. It doesn't have any particular platform dependencies. Why not simplify the whole system and make it a mandatory (and optionally bundled) dependency so that the show cognitive load of having to consider non-TS environments is just deleted?
>> 
>> First, the tree-sitter library itself is optional, so Emacs could be
>> built without it.  Or are you suggesting to import the library as well
>> into Emacs?  If we don't import the library, making it a mandatory
>> dependency is not TRT, IMO, because some users don't need the modes
>> supported by tree-sitter, so forcing them to install the library that
>> is not really useful to them is not right.  We never do anything like
>> that with any other external libraries.  GMP is special, but even for
>> it we added our own "mini-gmp".
>> 
>> Next, importing the grammar libraries into Emacs is not a simple
>> matter, either.  Their sources are in JavaScript, so if we want to let
>> users produce modified grammars (as we do with everything we have in
>> the release tarballs), they will need to have Node.js etc. installed,
>> which will become a prerequisite.  And there are other complications,
>> like the need to sync regularly with their upstream repositories.
>> Moreover, there's no precedent for doing this, if you exclude lwlib
>> and oldXMenu (which are different, since they are not developed
>> outside Emacs).
>> 
>> So I, for one, am not very happy to add this to our maintenance
>> burden.  It might make things easier for some (but see below), but it
>> doesn't come for free.
>> 
>> I also don't understand the fuss, really.  Compiling a grammar library
>> after cloning the repository takes seconds, so why do we have to do
>> all this on behalf of the users if the users can do it so easily, even
>> if distros don't?  E.g., I have on my system almost 70 grammar
>> libraries, which I regularly update and build with a small number of
>> simple Makefiles -- how hard can that be for anyone who is interested
>> in these modes?  Why does it have to be _our_ responsibility, any more
>> than, say, Grep or Findutils -- which are also heavily used by Emacs?
>> Or even the image libraries?  Why shouldn't this be the job of the
>> distros?  The upstream project doesn't have to think about packaging,
>> it's the job of the distros.
>
>Also, distros are picking up on packaging tree-sitter grammars, so I’m hopeful of a future where Emacs is packaged with tree-sitter grammars for the builtin major modes. And AFAIK packagers very much dislike editors bundling tree-sitter library and grammars themselves.
>
>Bundling grammars has another complication which is tree-sitter library-grammar compatibility. If we were to bundle grammars, we must also bundle tree-sitter library, lest we risk to encounter a tree-sitter library provided by the system that’s incompatible with the bundled grammars. And bundling the tree-sitter library is obviously undesirable.
>
>Yuan

The grammars don't make any backwards compatibility guarantees. There have been multiple Emacs bugs arising from grammars unilaterally changing terminal names and such. ISTM the only way to guarantee compatibility is to vendor the whole stack.