logstash-patterns VS rx

Why don't languages have grok patterns in their standard libraries?

It seems to only exist in log parsing ecosystems but this really helps with getting rid of little bugs and wrong parsing of specific regex patterns.

Instead of doing "^\d+(\.\d+){3}$" for IP checking which is clearly wrong, you'd do "%{IPV4:ip}" which is so much better.

List of known patterns : https://github.com/hpcugent/logstash-patterns/blob/master/fi...

Even for PHP a third party library only has 15 stars.

in case you haven't, it can be found here. https://github.com/hpcugent/logstash-patterns/blob/master/files/grok-patterns

Also, some of the patterns can be referred from https://github.com/hpcugent/logstash-patterns/blob/master/files/grok-patterns I personally prefer the above link for constructing grok pattern.

I had a similar kind of idea for a long time, which I put into action a few weeks ago via a standalone transpiler of Emacs' rx macro to common regexp syntaxes.[0] I ended up getting interrupted and didn't completely finish it, but it generally works, though is probably riddled with edge cases.

The basic idea of rx is to use S-expressions to describe regular expressions, and my elevator pitch would've been to embed rx invocations in shell scripts using $(syntax), the main use case being something like sed invocations.

I still think it's a neat idea, and complex regular expressions tend to be hard to parse for humans.

[0]: https://github.com/sulami/rx