3 ms·
Huh. tree-sitter seems neat, but I don’t really get why the author thinks processing the descriptor set is so hard. Seems equally difficult to learn a bunch of
by grumbles 2y ago
Huh. tree-sitter seems neat, but I don’t really get why the author thinks processing the descriptor set is so hard. Seems equally difficult to learn a bunch of new abstractions in the form of tree-sitter vs just learning protobuf’s own ones.
Also, if you’re parsing .proto files directly, you have to deal with a bunch of annoying issues like include paths, how you package sets of them to move around, etc. descriptor sets seem like a better solution to me.
- kstrauser 2y agoOTOH, if you can get treesitter to work, all the best editors will gain Protobuf support.
- oefrha 2y agoNo, they’re not inventing the tree-sitter grammar for protobuf here, they’re using the existing grammar provided by someone else. So it’s not like there’s additional reusable work being done here.
- parentheses 2y agoCame to the comments to say this. FileDescriptors have been so simple to work with that I am so surprised the author is touting TS for this use case. The other nice thing about all the descriptors is their schemas are protobufs, so language agnostic and easily serialized/deserialized.