Ok, understood. I was confused by the phrase "parse of that tree". Tree-sitter's output is closer to being "dynamic" than "untyped", though. It's not too hard

Ok, understood. I was confused by the phrase "parse of that tree". Tree-sitter's output is closer to being "dynamic" than "untyped", though. It's not too hard to build a layer on top of tree-sitter (out of the core lib) to generate statically typed APIs. I haven't felt the need for that yet, but it may be worth exploring. > actually process/compile it At work, I built a custom embedded DSL, using tree-sitter for parsing. It has worked well enough so far. The dynamically-typed nature of tree-sitter actually made it easier to port the DSL to multiple runtimes. > provide 100% accurate code intelligence Totally agree that tree-sitter cannot be used for this, if we are aiming for 100%.