Maybe I am missing what they meant here, but isn’t the entire point of tree-sitter that you can reuse old trees to make edit updates faster? It is seems quite probable that all the performance gains came from optimising for fixed files with no error recovery, at the cost of how ts is actually used.
Made a tree-sitter powered text editor. Implementing incremental parsing improved performance from 5ms to 400us for small edits in a ~100LOC file. For many applications tree-sitter without incremental parsing makes no sense, but I guess it's not a problem for ast-grep.
> incremental old-tree reuse were removed
Maybe I am missing what they meant here, but isn’t the entire point of tree-sitter that you can reuse old trees to make edit updates faster? It is seems quite probable that all the performance gains came from optimising for fixed files with no error recovery, at the cost of how ts is actually used.
Made a tree-sitter powered text editor. Implementing incremental parsing improved performance from 5ms to 400us for small edits in a ~100LOC file. For many applications tree-sitter without incremental parsing makes no sense, but I guess it's not a problem for ast-grep.
Reading the article is like climbing a load-bearing wall to quote their last phrase.