I really like the regexp syntax coloring. What makes me still reach out for rubular.com, is actually the regexp cheat sheet on the bottom of the page. After 25 years, I still like to have a cheat sheet for regexp to remember all the swithces etc.
RegExr: A website for interactive regex prototyping with syntax highlighting
31–40 of 72 posts
Re: RegExr: A website for interactive regex prototyping with syntax highlighting
#32Author: - When did you begin this? - What front-end JS framework did you program this in? - How many visitors do you get per day?
You will probably get some info from the author's blog: http://blog.gskinner.com/archives/2014/03/regexr-v2-build-te...
Re: RegExr: A website for interactive regex prototyping with syntax highlighting
#33 emacs
M-x regexp-builderRe: RegExr: A website for interactive regex prototyping with syntax highlighting
#34I had the older version bookmarked http://gskinner.com/RegExr/ which now redirects to this site. Some other good sites that I've used are:
Re: RegExr: A website for interactive regex prototyping with syntax highlighting
#35Nice work :) Looks like this tool puts the emphasis on the pedagogical aspect. For development, the most fantastic tool that I know of in this space is debuggex. Here is an example with roman numbers: https://www.debuggex.com/r/Xqlv3QcAuw_EgPSM
Out of all the links posted in this thread, https://www.debuggex.com/ is by far the best especially because of it's visualisation.
Re: RegExr: A website for interactive regex prototyping with syntax highlighting
#36Unfortunately, RegExr does not color-code the different capturing groups.
For example, replace the RegExr sample regex with "([A-Z])\w+\s\w(\d.\d)" and compare[1][2] its color coding capability to the other regex helpers.
The other sites such as regex101.com & debuggex.com will delineate the capture groups within the matched text using different colors. This is very helpful for complex captures because making the boundaries visible can reveal bugs in your thinking of what substrings the regex is actually capturing.
(I don't intend to be negative. If capture group color-coding is an easy coding enhancement for RegExr, consider my comments as mentioning a minor nit.)
[1]https://regex101.com/r/eB5jY1/1
[2]https://www.debuggex.com/r/mci3WLNmHGTEatf6
(couldn't find a way to enable /g global on debuggex.com (even tried PCRE option) but color boundaries still show up on the 1st capture group)
Re: RegExr: A website for interactive regex prototyping with syntax highlighting
#37Unfortunately, RegExr does not color-code the different capturing groups. For example, replace the RegExr sample regex with "([A-Z])\w+\s\w(\d.\d)" and compare[1][2] its color coding capability to the other regex helpers. The other sites such as regex101.com & debuggex.com will delineate the capture groups within the matched text using different colors. This is very helpful for complex captures because making the bou…
this seems incredibly easy to add given what they're done - just send a note to the author. I can't imagine how it wouldn't take seconds to implement.
Re: RegExr: A website for interactive regex prototyping with syntax highlighting
#38For anybody doing .NET development, RegexHero (http://regexhero.net/tester) is nice. It uses Silverlight though...
Re: RegExr: A website for interactive regex prototyping with syntax highlighting
#39I've been programming for about two decades. I had composed three regexes before my first coffee and before seeing this article this morning. My problem: I still don't have a good mnemonic to remember how magic differs grep, egrep, vim, awk, Perl, Python, etc. If that this site had modes and flavoured cheat-sheets I would live there!
I use RegexBuddy, it has a shitload of different modes.
Can it also translate regexes from one flavor to another?
Re: RegExr: A website for interactive regex prototyping with syntax highlighting
#40RegExr looks really nice, but my go to is still http://rubular.com .
What do you think makes it better? I think the UX on rubular is much cleaner. Don't they both serve a different flavor of regex?
For me, it's lightning fast with no clutter. I just want quick verification that the regex I'm writing matches a few samples. Explaining to me that `+` matches "one or more of the preceding group" adds no value.