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

[Theodor Thornhill]

[...]

>> For 'typescript-mode', it isn't feasible to enter the most use variant
>> into core because of copyright issues, but more importantly, it has some
>> very long-standing unfixed issues that are impossible to solve.
>> 
>> - tsx cannot be supported reliably by js-mode derivation because it uses
>>   same syntax for types and tsx ( <, >).  This is handled just fine by
>>   tree-sitter.  Same for template string literals.
>> 
>> - The tree-sitter variant is made by me and Jostein (CC'd) [1], so there are
>>   no issues there with assignment.
>> 
>> 
>> My suggestion is to add the tree-sitter variant in these cases, and let
>> the other modes die a slow, deprecated death down the line.
>> 
>> What do you think?
>
> SGTM, but I'd like to hear from Lars as well.
>
> Another possible concern is: what will users of the tree-sitter
> variants we add miss wrt the existing variants?  IOW, what useful
> features will be missing from the support of those languages by these
> new modes?

In some cases, such as the two I mentioned, nothing.  With others, such
as go-mode, something.  This could be some integration with package
managers, documentation lookup functions, etc.  In most cases, but not
all this is solved by LSP.  In the cases where there are benefits in the
original mode that needs to be handled case by case.

Theo