How do you think that would look? Regex isn’t particularly complicated, just a bit to remember. I’m trying to picture how you would represent a regex expression in a higher level language. I think one of its biggest benefits is the ability to shove so much information into a random looking string. I suppose you could write functions like, startswith, endswith, alpha(4), or something like that, but in the end, is that better?
There’s a built-in feature that Perl has that only a few of the languages claiming PCRE have actually done, and it makes things a lot more readable. The /x modifier lets you put in whitespace and comments. That alone helps a lot if you stick to good indentation practices.
If all other code was written like an obfuscated C contest, it would be horrible. For some reason, we put up with this on regex, and we don’t have to.
I agree, but then there’s also some other niceties that come from expression parsers in the language itself (as noted in the article): syntax highlighting, LSP, a more complete AST for editors like helix.
Syntax highlighting works fine as long as your language has a way to distinguish regexes from common strings. Another place where Perl did it right decades ago and the industry ignored it.
Nah, the language itself should be as simple as possible. Bloating it with endless extensibility and features is exactly what makes Perl a write-only language in many cases and why it is becoming less and less relevant with time.
Except it has some really good ideas that should be copied. There are other languages that have a syntax for denoting regex, such as ~r'foo' in Elixir. This gets the syntax highlighting you need without a big addition to the language.
Assuming “text” in your example is a placeholder for a 5 digit alpha string, it can be written like this in regex: /[a-zA-Z0-9]{5}/
If ”text" is literal, then your statement is impossible.
I think that when it gets to more complex expressions like a phone number with country code that accepts different formats, the verbosity of a higher level language will be more confusing, or at least more difficult to take in quickly.
Exactly. It’s a lot like Java to me. Looks readable on the surface, but it’s actually adding a bunch of crap you don’t need and does not help anything.
They also have to implement a long list of features. These projects tend to focus on the handful of features the authors specifically use, and the rest get sent by the wayside. Taking the Melody language that was mentioned in another message, it hasn’t even fully implemented[^A] or [abc]. We’re not even talking about somewhat obscure stuff like zero width assertions or lookaheads. These are very basic.
How do you think that would look? Regex isn’t particularly complicated, just a bit to remember. I’m trying to picture how you would represent a regex expression in a higher level language. I think one of its biggest benefits is the ability to shove so much information into a random looking string. I suppose you could write functions like, startswith, endswith, alpha(4), or something like that, but in the end, is that better?
People have unironically done that. No, it isn’t better. The fundamental mental model is the same.
I honestly think it can be a lot more readable, especially when the regex would have been in the thousands of characters.
There’s a built-in feature that Perl has that only a few of the languages claiming PCRE have actually done, and it makes things a lot more readable. The
/xmodifier lets you put in whitespace and comments. That alone helps a lot if you stick to good indentation practices.If all other code was written like an obfuscated C contest, it would be horrible. For some reason, we put up with this on regex, and we don’t have to.
https://wumpus-cave.net/post/2022/06/2022-06-06-how-to-write-regexes-that-are-almost-readable/index.html
I agree, but then there’s also some other niceties that come from expression parsers in the language itself (as noted in the article): syntax highlighting, LSP, a more complete AST for editors like helix.
Syntax highlighting works fine as long as your language has a way to distinguish regexes from common strings. Another place where Perl did it right decades ago and the industry ignored it.
Nah, the language itself should be as simple as possible. Bloating it with endless extensibility and features is exactly what makes Perl a write-only language in many cases and why it is becoming less and less relevant with time.
Except it has some really good ideas that should be copied. There are other languages that have a syntax for denoting regex, such as
~r'foo'in Elixir. This gets the syntax highlighting you need without a big addition to the language.I want to see their unironic attempts, maybe they’re useful to me at least if they’re not better.
It’s not the fundemental model that I have a problem with for Regex, it’s the fucking brainfuck tier syntax
Here’s one example
yes.
YES.
startswith('text'); lengthMustBe(5); onlyContain(CHARSETS.ALPHANUMERICS); endswith('text');is much more legible than []],[.<{}>,]‘text’[[]]][][)()(a-z,0-9){}{><}<>{}‘text’{}][][
Assuming “text” in your example is a placeholder for a 5 digit alpha string, it can be written like this in regex: /[a-zA-Z0-9]{5}/
If ”text" is literal, then your statement is impossible.
I think that when it gets to more complex expressions like a phone number with country code that accepts different formats, the verbosity of a higher level language will be more confusing, or at least more difficult to take in quickly.
Exactly. It’s a lot like Java to me. Looks readable on the surface, but it’s actually adding a bunch of crap you don’t need and does not help anything.
They also have to implement a long list of features. These projects tend to focus on the handful of features the authors specifically use, and the rest get sent by the wayside. Taking the Melody language that was mentioned in another message, it hasn’t even fully implemented
[^A]or[abc]. We’re not even talking about somewhat obscure stuff like zero width assertions or lookaheads. These are very basic.