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

[Daniel Martín]

Visuwesh <visuweshm@gmail.com> writes:

>
> I've read the rest of this thread and understand the argument but how
> memory hungry does Emacs get when enabling tree-sitter?  As far as I
> vaguely remember from the original tree-sitter inclusion discussion,
> tree-sitter used about the same memory as the buffer did for smallish
> files.  Even more vaguely, I remember opening xdisp.c with tree-sitter
> enabled shot up the memory usage to an unacceptable limit by my
> computer's standards.
> As someone with a mere 4G of RAM and 4G of swap space, I'm wondering if
> enabling tree-sitter will make my laptop even more memory hungry than it
> already can be when stressed [1].

In my preliminary tests with Emacs 29, Emacs -Q (macOS GUI app) starts
at around 48 MB of RAM.  When I (require 'treesit), memory usage climbs
to about 57 MB.  If I open a big Python file [1] and enable Tree-sitter
for the buffer, memory stays around 60-65 MB after a few scroll
operations and basic editing.  I can't test with xdisp.c as we don't
have C Tree-sitter support, AFAIK.

I think memory usage will vary depending on how we people use the
library, but I haven't seen any noticeable impact on memory usage
compared to a standard Emacs session.

[1]:
https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/blob/8056627d6a794f9acaff1a8165cc247bd252db31/tensorflow/python/ops/sparse_ops.py