Do you have an equivalent of TreeCursors or tree-sitter-generate?
There are at least some use cases where neither queries nor walks are suitable. And I have run into cases where being able to regenerate and compile grammars on the fly is immeasurably helpful.
At least for my use cases, this would be unusable.
Also, what the hell is this:
> partial [..] missing external scanner
Why do you have a parsing mode that guarantees incorrect outputs on some grammars (html comes to mind) and then use it as your “90x faster” benchmark figure?
the 90x figure is on Go source for apples to apples against CGO bound tree-sitter.
your use case is not one i designed for although yeah maybe the readme has some sections too close. the only external scanner missing atm is norg. now that i know your use case i can probably think of a way to close it
So your benchmarks are primarily just “how fast is go’s c interop” rather than any algorithmic improvement on tree-sitter?
Edit: yep, you are just calling a c function in a loop. So your no-op benchmark is just the time it takes for cgo to function. I would not be able to get any perf benefits from e.g. rust
eh, maybe. Sure Google bought Youtube, but the whole making it social came later. Apple spending a lot of time refining them is exactly the point. They did go up in the stack (given that they started out as home computer builder quite a bit). Word first came out for MS DOS, so definitely going up in the stack.
Currently it is in the "tech demo" phase. The only people I would recommend using this are people willing to contribute in some form. I would not recommend it as a daily driver hence the "alpha" tag on all the builds.
To be honest, the only part that I would recommend is our tooling that we use for soft-forking Firefox/Gecko, which is where we have the most outside testers and where I am focusing most of my upstream (mozilla-centeral) patches to improving.
Our website is a touch (read very) out of date. To clarify, we are working on newer features, like the sidebar tabs. Currently, it is a combination of a tech demo and a set of personal preferences (features, extensions, preferences) that I and the other developer would prefer. If you have ideas for new features, I am interested to hear them.
I don't really mind it, you can do whatever you want. I just have a problem with the choice of the word fork in this context, but I guess technically you're not wrong per se. Although it's more a fork of that dot browser build than of firefox itself, is that correct?
Hi, I am a dev on Pulse Browser. I want to clarify our current development direction (I haven't significant updated the website recently). We have been moving further away from privacy and towards developing/iterating on features faster than Firefox is willing to, along with providing sane defaults.
For example, we have been experimenting with a opera/vivaldi-like method of accessing Firefox's sidebar. Whilst you could technically achieve this via patching `omni.ja`, you would need to repatch it every update. At that point, it might as well be a custom browser.
Sorry about Vercel's insight stuff, not sure how that got enabled, but it should be disabled now (or whenever Cloudflare invalidates your cache).
Any chance we could see something like this in Pulse Browser or is that something that just requires touching too much of the underlying code base to be viable? ^^
Please not just vertical, I need my trees. Sidebery works pretty well though. Sometimes updates are a little delayed, but it's not very bad. Native support and optimizations for Sidebery should do the trick.
This would be huge for me. I can't really move away from Edge for productivity/work use cases until I have vertical tabs to a comparable usability in another browser.
Vertical tabs are indeed big for me, but I’ll add that it’s critical that it be possible to hide the unnecessarily huge and ugly sidebar header, which is the biggest problem plaguing vertical tab extensions on Firefox. Right now that requires userchrome edits which is ridiculous.
> We have been moving further away from privacy [...]
I appreciate your honesty, but hearing this was enough for me to file your project into the "not touching with a ten-foot pole" bucket alongside the likes of Wave Browser.
I think you are miss interpreting me. I don't want to focus on privacy above all else. To do that well would compromise on the usability of the browser. For example, if I were to advertise it as "privacy focused", I would not feel comfortable unless I included strict anti-fingerprinting, which would break websites.
It is a balancing act, and I won't be collecting or selling your data, but I won't be competing with Librewolf or Tor for the "privacy" market either. However, at the bare minimum, we will be more "private" than Firefox by extent of including uBo and disabling Mozilla's non-critical telemetry by default.
I believe that they meant, changing focus. Which is not a bad thing. Once the majority of the privacy stuff is achieved what more is there to do without making it into Tor browser?
> Sorry about Vercel's insight stuff, not sure how that got enabled,
How do you "accidentally" enable such user-hostile tracking? This gives quite a bad image of the site and the associated project. Will you "accidentally" enable telemetry as well on some future versions of Pulse?
It's actually an easy and understandable development mistake to make. It's usually an opt out situation, not opt in.
Development teams build and test with debug mode builds, send out these builds to internal teams to beta test. These telemetry tools are used to collect data, errors etc.
When it was time to ship, they forget to turn it off for the stable builds. I've seen it happen a lot.
I appreciate your initiative on creating a fork of Firefox and trying to innovate on it. The following criticism of the project is well intentioned, even if harsh:
> We have been moving further away from privacy and towards developing/iterating on features faster
That is fine but what have you done on the Privacy aspect? I tried out your alpha and immediately on startup it tries to connect to location.services.mozilla.com . So I disabled geolocation, and it still insists on connecting to Mozilla. So I check settings to see if there is an option to disable checking for updates, but there is no such option. If you want me to create config or policy files, I don't see how your browser is making things any easier than Firefox. And hence my question - what privacy features have you actually incorporated or enabled in Pulse Browser?
(Note: I am not questioning your rationale of the default settings, which is necessary for the average user, but the lack of ease for power users to customise any feature. Please look into how Pale Moon / White Star and Orion browsers ensure that disabling phoning home features in settings actually means that the browser will not make any automatic network connections on startups - they are the only 2 browsers that do this, and thus show that they genuinely respect their users.)
Otherwise, your whole project is just a browser extension bundled with the browser. Nevertheless, a good effort. You might find this resource useful for your project - https://sammacbeth.eu/blog/2020/12/27/firefox-fork.html
There are at least some use cases where neither queries nor walks are suitable. And I have run into cases where being able to regenerate and compile grammars on the fly is immeasurably helpful.
At least for my use cases, this would be unusable.
Also, what the hell is this:
> partial [..] missing external scanner
Why do you have a parsing mode that guarantees incorrect outputs on some grammars (html comes to mind) and then use it as your “90x faster” benchmark figure?