Please open firefox to that page, leave it open for a few minutes and observe the memory. I suspect FX will bloat too.

Did animation actually add anything significant anyway.

Any links to clear, actionable and reasonably comprehensive examples of these would be most helpful. Obviously abstract statements of the required semantics are also needed, but I also need to see what actual code would look like.

TIA

See https://youtu.be/Jes3bD6P0To

Tree sitter is based on LR parsing (see 23:30 in above video) extended to GLR parsing (see 38:30).

I've had enough of fools on HN posting unverified crap to make themselves feel cool and knowledgeable (and don't kid yourself that you helped me find the right answer by posting the wrong one). Time I withdrew. Goodbye HN.

> How can you be sure that that } is the end of a certain defined block

If it's not in a string, what else is it but a typo? If a typo, it fails to parse but so long as it doesn't crash, fine.

The parser is the most trivial side of things, if you consider that a key skill it comes across as being an issue from the 1970s, not today. Writing a RD by hand is not a big deal anyway as someone else said.

If your into optimising compilers you're focusing on a very odd area to criticise. I'd gave though more about dataflow using lattices or whatever, graph stuff etc.

So parsing aside, what are the 'relevant' skills you feel are missing?

(and what are 'Database Compilers'? Nearest I can think of that may fit are query optimisers)

Well mate, take a guess :) I do it on the phone only (and I don't mean smartphone). I've had a little exposure to bank's competence from the inside 20 years ago (large UK bank, mortgages), they couldn't find their own arse with a torch, arrows, diagrams and a PhD in arse-finding.

> 'll just rephrase things to something less offensive: you're not "hurting" yourself, you're limiting yourself, sometimes with drawbacks not everyone is able/willing to endure.

That's much more accurate. We can agree, however consider that that 'limiting [my]self' means limiting my exposure to ads, abuse of my CPU, tracking, most dark patterns, nag screens, malware and more. The tradeoff's very ok for me, and I've experience the web on both sides. Oh yes it's worth it! (for me).

So you're making fun of me although you haven't tried it. Yeah, okay.

> But I expect 95% of the web to break if I disable it

And you'll be wrong, it is much lower than that (except if you're talking about adverts failing to display, then I guess yes, in that respect it does).

I don't give a damn about other sites (and I don't browse intranet sites on my home machine -- if I'm in an office I use their office machine). If they don't work I don't use them except in rare cases when I really need to in which case they get run in a VM.

> you're probably hurting yourself, too

That's deeply patronising from somebody who admits they haven't even tried doing what I do, nor has even asked why I and others do it (hint: it's for many of the reasons you described). It sounds like you're talking to a rather stupid child.

While it's true USA'ians are probably more individualistic than many other cultures and that may translate some way even to selfishness, the above quote is a gross, incorrect and offensive description, and I'm a brit.

Please don't broadbrush entire cultures.

Certainly useful at times as I suppose it may be used to ensure you don't have cycles (I imagine that could be useful for resource management) but 'can have cycles' is definitely not 'does have cycles'. It's the latter that's important here.