Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Just another Perl shrine
 
PerlMonks  

Re^3: Why a regex *really* isn't good enough for HTML, even for "simple" tasks

by ikegami (Pope)
on May 09, 2020 at 09:20 UTC ( #11116605=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: Why a regex *really* isn't good enough for HTML, even for "simple" tasks
in thread Why a regex *really* isn't good enough for HTML and XML, even for "simple" tasks

people do try to use regexes to extract stuff from HTML all the time.

I know. And like I said, your argument isn't going to convince a single one of them to stop. They will see their tasks as simple tasks and yours as complex, and you completely failed to show why regex shouldn't be used for simple tasks despite your claims. Perhaps you should add an explanation as to why they shouldn't be used for simple tasks?

  • Comment on Re^3: Why a regex *really* isn't good enough for HTML, even for "simple" tasks

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Why a regex *really* isn't good enough for HTML, even for "simple" tasks
by haukex (Bishop) on May 09, 2020 at 09:37 UTC
    I know. And like I said, your argument isn't going to convince a single one of them to stop. They will see their tasks as simple tasks and yours as complex, and you completely failed to show why regex shouldn't be used for simple tasks despite your claims.

    I see your point now, and I guess that means your initial post could have been something along the lines of "I think your argument might be less effective because people will see their tasks as simple tasks and yours as complex, so how about adding an explanation why regexes still shouldn't be used?". Instead, you chose to be rude.

    Update: Once again, the above quote represents the entirety of your node at the time I saw it and started composing my reply.

Re^4: Why a regex *really* isn't good enough for HTML, even for "simple" tasks
by ikegami (Pope) on May 09, 2020 at 09:31 UTC

    Downvoting and ignoring constructive criticism isn't going to convince the people you are supposedly trying to help. When I say it won't convince them, I mean it has always failed to convince them before. I've seen people have made the same argument countless times to no avail. The best results I've seen have been from showing them it's actually easier to do it right. That even appears to be the message you are trying to send with the examples, so it's really just a question of how you frame the problem!

      Downvoting and ignoring constructive criticism isn't going to convince the people you are supposedly trying to help. When I say it won't convince them, I mean it has always failed to convince them before. I've seen people have made the same argument countless times to no avail. The best results I've seen have been from showing them it's actually easier to do it right.

      First of all, I do take criticism, as I've shown time and time again; saying I've ignored it is quite unfair because you haven't even given me a chance to edit my node because I'm here responding to your barrage of posts and ninja edits. Second, your first few posts here were absolutely not "constructive criticism".

      Update: Despite your series of incredibly rude posts here ("Your argument is utterly unconvincing.", "you completely failed", "the people you are supposedly trying to help", which I would normally ignore as trolling), in this case I have made a small edit to the top of the root node. I can only hope you're aware that your "style" of posting seriously reduces the effectiveness of your communication, and in the future I may very well choose to ignore any "advice" from you that isn't actually constructive. Postel's law applies to the sender as well, you know.

      In addition:

      The best results I've seen have been from showing them it's actually easier to do it right.

      I do, all the freaking time (no, really).

      Sometimes, people will still need further convincing or want to know why their approach won't work, which is why I created the root node in the first place, as something to link to that will very likely break their regexes.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://11116605]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others musing on the Monastery: (6)
As of 2020-11-30 10:13 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found

    Notices?