This depends on the parser implementation. For example, https://github.com/yorickpeterse/ruby-ll lets you customize the error messages as the default ones can be a little bit confusing at times. An example of this is https://github.com/YorickPeterse/oga/blob/0fd6fd8645e57ea4b2... which changes messages from "unexpected T_FOO, expected T_BAR" to "unexpected end of input, expected element closing tag".

Having said that, a hand written parser _will_ beat LL(1) (or any parser generator for that matter) when it comes to error reporting, though this depends on the amount of effort a programmer put in to the error reporting.

I'm talking about the recovery, not the messages - things like "skip to the next ';' and continue parsing a statement".

> or any parser generator for that matter

PEG-based generators can be just as good as handcrafted ones.

As can Earley based ones, since the full parsing state is available (and, for that matter - possible to modify. It is quite possible to make up rules as you go).