in reply to regex in perl and Java

Given that the pcre (Perl-Compatible Regular Expressions) library is the primary standard for regular expressions throughout the programming world, this isn't surprising. :-)
My criteria for good software:
  1. Does it work?
  2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: regex in perl and Java
by blazar (Canon) on Jul 16, 2008 at 14:05 UTC

    I personally believe that this is fair enough, but one point that is important to be stressed, and may be of interest to the OP, is that even if (s)he may not need them say now or on a much frequent basis, Perl regexen in perl support extensions allowing (mostly) arbitrary code: I don't know about pcre, but I doubt that they're ported there to, allowing constructs which involve code in some other languages. So definitely this should be a point in favour of (strictly) Perl regexen.

    (Apologies for replying so late.)

    --
    If you can't understand the incipit, then please check the IPB Campaign.
[reply]
[d/l]
      This is true enough in non-dynamic languages such as C. If I recall, Ruby and Python support the arbitrary code bit in their own fashion, so this isn't a point strictly in favour of Perl.
      My criteria for good software:
      1. Does it work?
      2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?
[reply]

        I personally believe that (oh... well... then) it won't be strictly a point in favour of Perl, but it will still be slightly so due to the fact that "their" arebitrary code won't be just as sexy as ours! :)

        --
        If you can't understand the incipit, then please check the IPB Campaign.
[reply]
[d/l]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

In Section Meditations