Regular Expression Hell
Regular Expression Hell
Introducing Regular Expression Hell, where fundamentals are forgotten or glossed over to the detriment of code quality.
Join the DZone community and get the full member experience.Join For Free
DevOps involves integrating development, testing, deployment and release cycles into a collaborative process. Learn more about the 4 steps to an effective DevSecOps infrastructure.
Actual quote: "they spend a lot of time maintaining regular expressions. So, what are the alternatives to regular expression hell?"
Regular Expression Hell? It's a thing?
I have several thoughts:
- Do you have metrics to support "a lot"? I doubt it. It's very difficult to tease RE maintenance away from code maintenance. Unless you have RE specialists. Maybe there's an RE organization that parallels the DBA org. DBA's write SQL. RE specialists write RE's. If that was true, I could see that you would have metrics, and could justify "a lot." Otherwise, I suspect this is hyperbole. There's frustration, true.
- REs are essential to programming. It's hard to express how fundamental they are. I would suggest that programmers who have serious trouble with RE's have serious trouble with other aspects of the craft, and might need remedial training in RE's (and other things.) There's no shame in getting some training. There are a lot of books that can help. Claiming that there's no time for training (or no budget) is what created RE Hell to begin with. It's a trivial problem to solve. You can spend 16 hours fumbling around, or stop fumbling, spend 16 hours learning, and then press forward with a new skill. The choice is yours.
- REs are simply a variant on conventional set theory. They're not hard at all. Set theory is essential to programming, so are RE's. It's as fundamental as boolean algebra. It's as fundamental as getting a loop to terminate properly. It's as fundamental as copy-and-paste from the terminal window.
- REs are universal because they solve a number of problems better than any other technology. Emphasis on better than ANY alternative. RE's are baked into the syntax of languages like awk and perl. They're universal because no one has ever built a sensible alternative. If you want to see even more baked-in regular expression goodness, learn SNOBOL4.
REs are essential. Failure to master REs suggests failure to learn the fundamentals.
RE Hell is like Boolean Algebra Hell. It's like Set Theory Hell. It's like Math Library Hell. It's like Uninitialized Variables Hell. These are things you create through a kind of intentional ignorance.
I'm sorry to sound harsh. But I'm unsympathetic.
The initial regex in question? r"[\( | \$ | \/ |]". This indicates a certain lack of familiarity with the basics. It looks like it started as r"\(|\$|/" and someone put in spaces (perhaps they intended to use the verbose option when compiling it) and/or wrapped the whole in 's. After trying the 's, it appeared to work and they called it done.
The email asked (sort of trivially) if it was true that the last pipe was extraneous. Um. Yes. But.
The hard parts are (1) trying to figure out what the question really is. Why did they remove just the last pipe character? What were they trying to do? What's the goal? Then (2) trying to figure out how much tutorial background is required to successfully answer whatever question is really being asked. A response of r"[\(\$/]" seems like it might not actually be helpful. Acting a magic oracle that emits mysterious answers would only perpetuate the reigning state of confusion.
The follow-up requests for clarification resulted in (1) an exhaustive list of every book that seems to mention regex, (2) a user story that was far higher level than the context of regex questions. It's difficult to help when there's no focus. Every Book. Generalized "matching" of "data."
The Python connection? Can't completely parse that out, either, It appears that this is part of an ETL pipeline. I can't be sure because the initial user story made so little sense.
Attempts to discuss the supplied user story about "matching" and "data" -- predictably -- lead nowhere. It was stopped at "Some of the problems ... aren’t just typos and misspellings." Wait. What? What are they then? If they're not misspellings, what are they? Fraud? Hacking attempts? Denial of Service attacks by tying up time in some matching algorithm?
It's a misspelling. It can't be anything else. Ending the conversation by claiming otherwise is a strange and self-defeating approach to redesigning the software.
At this point, we seem to be narrowing the domain of discussion to "As time goes on, we have accumulated a lot of the 'standard mistakes'. The question that need help w/ [sic] is how to manage all the code for these 'common mistakes'?" This question was provided in lieu of an actual user story. Lack of a story might mean that we're not interested in actually solving the data matching problem. Instead we're narrowly focused on sprinkling Faerie Dust all over the regexes to make them behave better.
They don't want an alternative to regexes because the problems "aren't just typos and misspellings." They want the regex without the regex hell.
Published at DZone with permission of Steven Lott , DZone MVB. See the original article here.
Opinions expressed by DZone contributors are their own.