From my quick scan of the thesis, the basic design seems to be a programming language in which you write both the parser and any transformations you want to perform. It's not clear whether there is an easily-accessible parse tree serialization that you can use to load the output into another language, or whether you'd have to invent that yourself.

I think it's generally a hard sell if you try to convince people that they need to write their algorithms in your special language. Parsing tools deliver value because grammars are easier to write than the imperative code that implements those grammars. That value offsets the cost of having to learn a new special-purpose language. But imperative programming languages are already pretty good at tree traversal and transformation, so there's little benefit to using a special-purpose language for this.

I think that the next big thing in parsing will be a runtime that easily integrates into other languages so that the parsing framework can handle only the parsing and all of the tree traversal and transformation can be performed using whatever language the programmer was already using. This requires much less buy-in to a special-purpose language.