I am quite sure that batch will work with good responsiveness for many, if not most, common languages provided source files have fewer than say 30k lines in them. If you just think about the io performance of modern computers, it should not be that difficult to parse at 25MB/sec which I estimate translates to between 500K to 1M loc, which again is in the 15k-30k loc range per 30ms.

I'm not saying that incremental is bad per se, but that the choice of guaranteeing incrementalism complicates things for cases where it isn't necessary. I am not super familiar with lsp, but I can imagine lsp having a syntax highlighting endpoint that has both batch and incremental modes. A naive implementation could just run the batch mode when given an incremental request and later add incremental support as necessary. In other words, I think it would be best if there were another layer of indirection between the editor and the parser (whether that is tree-sitter or another implementation).

Right now though, you have to opt in whole hog to the tree-sitter approach. As mentioned above, incrementalism has no benefit and only cost for a batch tool like difftastic or semgrep to mention two named in this thread.