jnoortheen / parser-experiments

Python parsing experiments

Overview

experiment with different ways to parse and generate ast with optimal speed & memory. All of these below parse Python3.10 grammar.

module	total allocated size	time	peak
pgen2	369KiB	0.08s	684KiB
pegen + regex(tokenizer)	1767KiB	0.32s	2015KiB
pegen	1234KiB	0.38s	2281.9KiB
xonsh-ply	8240.6 KiB	0.65s	10333.5KiB
lark (lalr-cached)	3753.7 KiB	0.74s	9307.3KiB
parso	3542.7 KiB	0.80s	3690.2KiB
treesitter	9137.0 KiB	1.56s	9708.7KiB
libcst	21817.KiB	6.5s	23024.4KiB

seems like both are good. easpecially pgen2 interms of memory usage and performance. but we can use pegen2 as it has a separate pypi package. We can expect some stability as Python may include more and more peg only changes

Conclusions

A. xonsh-ply

• the existing parser is slow and uses more memory.
• the ply codebase is a mess though rply is good and we can optimize with some care

B. pegen

• It will be following the official parser, hence future proof
• generates AST which we can feed directly to the interpreter
• has big peak memory size but it gets released and will end up with optimal size
  • when regex is used to tokenize the peak memory is 2015KiB
• I found a PR which intends to make use of pegen in place of ply
  • nucleic/enaml#474
  • https://github.com/jecki/DHParser - another interesting peg generator.
    • includes test generation
    • language server...

C. pgen2

• it comes from lib2to3 package of CPython. but it will be removed in py3.13 or so ... not much future proof
  • but black-formatter has forked it and it may stick around sometime more. we can refer these packages if we decided to base our parser on this
• but has very less memory usage and faster too for any of the tested tools here
• Links
  • https://github.com/pyga/awpa/tree/master/awpa
  • parso grammars

D. parso

• it is a fork of pgen2
• does error recovery of sorts and hence the high memory usage
• we can pick some pieces from this project if we decided to use pgen2

E. treesitter

• even with the python bindings it ended up using more memory.
• seems like the memory is not freed as the peak memory is the same as total allocated.

Step forward

1. implement the completion-context parser in pgen2 and pegen and compare the
   1. development time
   2. performance
   3. memory usage

Links

• https://www.dabeaz.com/ply/ply.html - good resource to dive into the world of parser generation
• https://itnext.io/hacking-the-python-syntax-part-1-ternary-operator-bbcb04aa6ecb

parser-experiments's Issues

Please add `xonsh` and `xonsh-dev` topic to the repo