I say this so often: "I can't believe it's $year and we're still using regex!" So when I see "new pattern matching language" my eyes light up and I run over there -- but there's no example, no docs, even where it says "examples", and "docs", and it's hard to find anything I can use. I'm sorry, am I a vulgar entitled twit for not finding the spoon right away?<p>Regex is terrible to read. Give me an example, things we frequently match for, IP, credit card number, dates ... I read the example for date parsing, I'm ... not sure what the equiv is? I suggest the authors put up a Rosetta stone of sort, eg. in regex-speak: [0-1][0-9]-[0-3][0-9]-201[0-9], in Rosie-speak: xyz. What about capture group, that's what makes regex powerful, not just matching, that and the look-ahead look-behind.<p>Meta-comment: regex is buried in everything significant that I work with, it's buried in grep, the language libraries, Splunk. It's going to be hard to dislodge, there's a deep moat because the tools and common use cases are ugly but well-understood. Why <i>are</i> regex still being used? Why has nothing better come along? How would I even regex-match extended Unicode?
Seems like a middle ground between regex and a parser combinator library.<p>Also there was a strangeloop talk by it's creator
<a href="https://youtu.be/MkTiYDrb0zg" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/MkTiYDrb0zg</a>
I've look for a while at this, and have come to this conclusion:<p>At the time I need a multi-line pattern language, I just whip up a FSM-like program in code. And I'll continue to do that.
It's really disingenuous to sell your project as a replacement for regular expressions when it has greater expressive power than them in the Chomsky hierarchy.