Re: Call for volunteers: add tree-sitter support to major modes

[Jostein Kjønigsen]

On 11 Oct 2022, at 09:46, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> From: Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no>
>> Cc: larsi@gnus.org, acm@muc.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, jostein@kjonigsen.net
>> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2022 09:23:41 +0200
>> 
>>>> Sure, I can rename it to tsx-mode, because that's the parser being used.
>>> 
>>> SGTM.
>>> 
>> 
>> Good, I'll integrate js.el into typescript-mode.el
>> 
>>>> Why is that desirable, though? 
>>> 
>>> It prevents user confusion and conflicts, I guess?
>> 
>> In many cases, yes, but in the Typescript case most users will be
>> advised to move on from that mode.  I don't really think there should be
>> an issue - that repo can be archived when we have reasonable support.
>> Jostein and/or others should of course chime in on this.
>> 
>> How about we let it live as typescript-mode.el for now, and I can
>> absolutely make sure the renaming happens should we decide to do so.
> 
> My personal preference is to avoid conflicts even if we consider them
> unlikely and/or desirable.

Just to be clear: I’m one of the few maintainers of the utterly inadequate 
typescript-mode found on MELPA (and so is Theodor).

Development of the Elisp-based parser has already stalled and there’s really 
not much development going on there at all. Nor has there been for quite a 
time. 

I’m fairly certain iI speak on behalf of most of us when I say that once the 
tree-sitter based typescript-mode is available via Emacs, we will halt 
development entirely, and just add the required code to avoid colliding with an 
existing Emacs-implementation. 

There will be -no collusion- by introducing the typescript-mode.el patch as 
typescript-mode, because this will effectively become the new living 
implementation.