Related
It strikes me that regular expressions are not understood well by the majority of developers. It also strikes me that for a lot of problems where regular expressions are used, a lump of code could be used instead. Granted, it might be slower and be 20 lines for something like email validation, but if performance of the code is not desperately important, is it reasonable to assume that not using regular expressions might be better practise?
I'm thinking in terms of maintenance of the code rather that straight line execution time.
Maintaining one regular expression is a lot less effort than maintaining 20 lines of code. And you underestimate the amount of code needed - for a regex of any complexity, the replacement code could easily be 200 rather than 20 lines.
Professional developers should be familiar with basic syntax
At the very least. In all the years long I've been a professional developer I haven't come across a developer that wouldn't know what Regular Expressions are. It's true, not everybody likes using them or is very good at knowing its syntax, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't use them. Developers should learn the syntax and regular expressions should be used.
It's like: "Ok. We have Lambda expressions, but who cares, I can still do it the old fashioned way."
Not learning key aspects of professional development is pure laziness and shouldn't be tolerated for too long.
Whenever i use a Regex i always try to leave a comment explaining exactly how it's structured because I agree with you that not all developers understand them and going back to a regex, even if you've written it yourself, can be a headache to understand again.
That said, they definitely have their uses. Try stripping out all html elements from a box of text without it!
I'm thinking in terms of maintenance of the code rather that straight line execution time.
Code size is the single most important factor in reducing maintainability.
And while Regexps can be very hard to decipher, so are 50 line string processing methods - and the latter are more likely to contain bugs in rare corner cases.
The thing is: any non-trivial regexp must be commented just as thoroughly as you'd comment a 50 line method.
Regular expressions are a domain-specific language: no generic programming language is quite as expressive or quite as efficient at doing what regular expressions do with string matching. The sheer size of the lump of code you will have to write in a standard programming language (even one with a good string library) will make it harder to maintain. It is also a good separation-of-concerns to make sure that the regular expression only does the matching. Having a code blob that basically does matching, but does something else in-between can produce some surprising bugs.
Also note that there are mechanisms to make regular expressions more readable. In Python you can enable verbose mode, which allows you to write things like this:
a = re.compile(r"""\d + # the integral part
\. # the decimal point
\d * # some fractional digits""", re.X)
Another possibility is to build the regular expression up from strings, by line and comment each line, like this:
a = re.compile("\d+" # the integral part
"\." # the decimal point
"\d *" # fraction digits
)
This is possible in different ways in most programming languages. My advice is to keep using regular expressions where appropriate, but treat them like you do other code. Write them as clear as possible, comment them and test them.
You raise a very good point with regards to maintainability. Regular expressions can require some deciphering to understand but I doubt the code which would replace them would be easier to maintain. Regular Expressions are VERY powerful and a valuable tool. Use them but use them carefully, and think about how to make it clear what the intent of the regular expression is.
Regards
With great power comes great responsibility!
Regular expressions are great, but there can be a tendancy to over-use them! There are not suitable in all cases!
In my opinion, it might make more sense to enforce better practices with using regular expressesions other than forgoing it all together.
Always comment your regular expressions. You might know what it does now, but someone else might not and even you might not remember in two weeks. Moreover, descriptive comments should be used, stating exactly what the regular expression is meant to do.
Use unit testing. Create unit tests for your regular expressions. So can have a degree of assurance as to the reliability and correctness of your regular expression statement. And if the regex is being maintained, it would ensure that any code changes does not break existing functionality.
Using regular expression has some advantages:
Time. You don't have to write your own code to do exactly what is built in.
Maintainability. You have to maintain only a couple of lines as opposed to 30 or 300
Performance. The code is optimized
Reliability. If your regex statement is correct, it should function correctly.
Flexibility. Regex gives you a lot of power which is very useful if used properly
Think of regular expressions as the lingua Franca of string processing. You simply need to know them if you are going tocode in a professional capacity. Unless you just write SQL maybe.
I would just like to add that unit testing is the ideal way to make your regular expressions maintainable. I consider Regex an essential developer skill that is always a practical alternative to writing many lines of string manipulation code.
The most hassle I see is when people try to parse non-regular languages with regular expressions (yes, that includes all programming and many markup languages, yes, also HTML). I sometimes wish all coders had to demonstrate that they have understood at least the difference between context-free and regular languages before they are allowed to use regular expressions. Alternatively, they could get their regex license revoked when they are caught trying to parse non-regular languages with them. Yes, I'm joking, but only half.
The next problem arises when people try to do more than character matching in a regular expression, for example, checking for a valid date, perhaps even including leap year considerations (this could also lead to regex license revokation).
Regular expressions really are just a convenient shorthand for a finite state automaton (You know what that is, don't you? Where is your regex license, please?). The problems come from people expecting some kind of magic from them, not from the regular expressions themselves.
I see regex as a fast, readable and preferable way to perform pattern matching on string data. So many languages support regex for this reason. If you wanted to write string manipulation code to match say, a Canadian zip code, be my guest, but the regex equivalent is so much more succinct. Definitely worth it.
In .NET regex'es you can have comments, and break them up into multiple lines, use indenting etc. (I don't know about other dialects...)
Use the "ignore pattern whitespace" setting, and either # for commenting out the rest of the line, or "(#comments)" in your pattern...
So if you wanted to, you can actually make them sort of readable/maintainable...
I just ran into this issue. I built a regular expression to pull out groups of data from a long string of numbers and some other noise. The regex was quite long, though concise, and it got even bigger when i tried to add it to the C# app i was writing. In total the reg ex was 3 lines of code.
However it was painful to look at after i escaped it for C# and the other developers i work with don't under stand regular expressions. I ended up stripping out most of the noise characters and splitting on space to get the groups of data. Very simple code and only 5 lines.
Which is better? My ego says Regular Expressions. Any new hire would say character stripping.
I would never wish for fewer options in programming. Regular expressions can be very powerful, but do require skill. I like problems that can be solved in a few lines of code. It is really cool how many elements of validation can be accomplished. As long as the code is commented on what the expression checks for, I do not see a problem. I also have never seen a professional programmer not know what a regex was. It is another tool in the tool box.
Regex is one tool among many. But as many craftsmen will attest, the more tools you have at your disposal, and the more skilled you are at using them, the more likely you will become a Master Craftsman.
Is Regex worth the hassle to you? Dunno. Depends how seriously you take what you do.
It's a lot easier to see at first glance that a regex is probably correct. Why would I write a long state machine in code (probably containing bugs at first) when I could write a simple one line regex?
Regexes may be considered "write only", but I think that is sometimes a benefit. When writing a relatively simple regex from scratch, it's pretty easy to get it right.
True, learning to decipher regexes is difficult -- but so is learning to decipher the hosting program code in the first place. But is that so difficult, that we would rather write out manual instruction for a person to perform? No -- because that would be ridiculously longer and complicated. Same thing for not using a properly-formed regex.
I've found with reg ex it's easier to maintain, but fine tuning someone else's reg ex is a bit of a pain. I think you underestimate the developers by saying most people don't understand it. Usually what I found is that over time, requirements adjust, and the regex that used to validate something is no longer effective and attempting to remove portions that are no longer valid is harder than to just rewrite the entire thing.
Also, imagine if you were validating phone numbers, and you decided to use code instead of reg ex. So it amounts to let's say 20 lines. Over time, your company decides to expand to other regions where now the phone validation is no longer totally true. So you have to adjust it to fit the other requirements. It could be possible that the code would be harder to maintain because you have to adjust over 20 lines of code rather than simply removing the old reg ex, and replacing it with a new one.
However, I think code can be used in certain cases along with regex. For example, let's say you want to validate US phone numbers, in every case, it has 10 digits numbers, but there are literally a ton of ways to write it out. For example (xxx) xxx-xxxx, or xxx-xxx-xxxx, or xxx xxx xxxx, etc, etc, etc. So if you write reg ex, you'd have to account for each of the cases. However, if you just strip all non-numerics and spaces with a regex replace, then go for a second pass and check if it has 10 digits, you'd find it easier than accounting each and every possible way to write a phone number.
One thing that doesn't seem mentioned (from a quick scan of the answers above) is that regular expressions are useful outside of code too. That means they are worth the hassle for a coder, or even for end users.
For example, I just wrote a bunch of unit tests for a formatter. I then made a copy of the test, and used a single regex in my editor to invert values and resulting strings (changing the method name too), giving expected value to a string to parse...
Another example: in our product, we allow using regular expressions for searching or filtering columns of data: sometime it is useful to get only names starting with something, ending with something, with letters followed by digits, or similar: no need to be a master of regexes to use them.
In these cases, writing code isn't an option (well, I could have made a small Lua script in the first case, but it would have been longer) and performance isn't a major issue.
But even in code, I often find easier and more readable to use a simple regular expression than a bunch of substring() with complex offsets and whatnot. Beside, they shine to validate user input where, again, performance isn't an issue.
Due to the type of apps I build, the only RegEx's I regularly use are for email validation, html stripping, and character stripping to remove the garbage around phone numbers.
It's rare that I need to do very much string manipulation other than concatenation.
Incidentally, the apps are typically CRM's.
So the hassle for me is limited to googling for a regex in the event I find myself in need. ;)
Read the section under "Using Benchmarks" at JavaWorld.
Sure regular expressions are a very helpful tool, but I agree that they are overused and over complicate what can easily be a simple solution.
That being said, you should use regular expressions whenever the situation calls for it. Some things, such as searching for text in a string, can just as easily be done with an iterative search (or using the API searches), but for more complex situations you need regular expressions.
Surly all code needs to be optimized where possible!
In the context where code need not be optimized, and the logic will need to be maintained then it is down to the skill set of the team.
If the bulk of the team responsible for the code is regEX savvy then do it with a regEX. Else write it in the way the team is likely to be most comfortable with.
VB.net is best, No, C# is, No F# is the best. It's really more a matter of what will be the people maintaining be better suited to handle, in my opinion. That's more a flame question, than something that is absolutely answerable.
Personally I'd choose regex whenever there's complex string validation (phone numbers,emails, ss#, ip addresses) where there are well known regex's out there. Get it from regex.org, give attribution with a comment and/or get the authors permission whichever is appropriate, and be done with it.
Also, for extracting pieces of a string, or complex splitting of strings, regex can be a great time saver.
But if you're writing your own, rather than using someone else's, using something like regex buddy or sells brothers regexdesigner is a must for testing and validation.
It always depends on where it's used. If by doing the same task using a lump of code is being too complex and hard to maintain which can be a 1 liner less complex regex, then go with regex. Other wise use the lump of code.
Also I encountered problems which can I believe can only be answered by regex effective and concisely. Such question like this which can only be answered by another regex effectively: Dart regex for capturing groups but ignoring certain similar patterns
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 13 years ago.
Someone I know has been telling me that RegEx should be avoided, as it is heavyweight or involves heavy processing. Is this true? This made a clap in my ears, ringing my eardrums up until now.
I don't know why he told me that. Could it have been from experience or merely 3rd-hand information (you know what I mean...)?
So, stated plainly, why should I avoid regular expressions?
If you can easily do the same thing with common string operations, then you should avoid using a regular expression.
In most situations regular expressions are used where the same operation would require a substantial amount of common string operations, then there is of course no point in avoiding regular expressions.
Don't avoid them. They're an excellent tool, and when used appropriately can save you a lot of time and effort. Moreover, a good implementation used carefully should not be particularly CPU-intensive.
Overhyped? No. They're extremely powerful and flexible.
Overused? Absolutely. Particularly when it comes to parsing HTML (which frequently comes up here).
This is another of those "right tool for the job" scenarios. Some go too far and try to use it for everything.
You are right though in that you can do many things with substring and/or split. You will often reach a point with those where what you're doing will get so complicated that you have to change method or you just end up writing too much fragile code. Regexes are (relatively) easy to expand.
But hand written code will nearly always be faster. A good example of this is Putting char into a java string for each N characters. The regex solution is terser but has some issues that a hand written loop doesn't and is much slower.
You can substitute "regex" in your question with pretty much any technology and you'll find people who poorly understand the technology or too lazy to learn the technology making such claims.
There is nothing heavy-weight about regular expressions. The most common way that programmers get themselves into trouble using regular expressions is that they try to do too much with a single regular expression. If you use regular expressions for what they're intended (simple pattern matching), you'll be hard-pressed to write procedural code that's more efficient than the equivalent regular expression. Given decent proficiency with regular expressions, the regular expression takes much less time to write, is easier to read, and can be pasted into tools such as RegexBuddy for visualization.
As a basic parser or validator, use a regular expression unless the parsing or validation code you would otherwise write would be easier to read.
For complex parsers (i.e. recursive descent parsers) use regex only to validate lexical elements, not to find them.
The bottom line is, the best regex engines are well tuned for validation work, and in some cases may be more efficient than the code you yourself could write, and in others your code would perform better. Write your code using handwritten state machines or regex as you see fit, but change from regex to handwritten code if performance tests show you that regex is significantly inefficient.
"When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Regular expressions are a very useful tool; but I agree that they're not necessary for every single place they're used. One positive factor to them is that because they tend to be complex and very heavily used where they are, the algorithms to apply regular expressions tend to be rather well optimized. That said, the overhead involved in learning the regular expressions can be... high. Very high.
Are regular expressions the best tool to use for every applicable situation? Probably not, but on the other hand, if you work with string validation and search all the time, you probably use regular expressions a lot; and once you do, you already have the knowledge necessary to use the tool probably more efficiently and quickly than any other tool. But if you don't have that experience, learning it is effectively a drag on your productivity for that implementation. So I think it depends on the amount of time you're willing to put into learning a new paradigm, and the level of rush involved in your project. Overall, I think regular expressions are very worth learning, but at the same time, that learning process can, frankly, suck.
I think that if you learn programming in language that speaks regular expressions natively you'll gravitate toward them because they just solve so many problems. IE, you may never learn to use split because regexec() can solve a wider set of problems and once you get used to it, why look anywhere else?
On the other hand, I bet C and C++ programmers will for the most part look at other options first, since it's not built into the language.
You know, given the fact that I'm what many people call "young", I've heard too much criticism about RegEx. You know, "he had a problem and tried to use regex, now he has two problems".
Seriously, I don't get it. It is a tool like any other. If you need a simple website with some text, you don't need PHP/ASP.NET/STG44. Still, no discussion on whether any of those should be avoided. How odd.
In my experience, RegEx is probably the most useful tool I've ever encountered as a developer. It's the most useful tool when it comes to #1 security issue: parsing user input. I has saved me hours if not days of coding and creating potentially buggy (read: crappy) code.
With modern CPUs, I don't see what's the performance issue here. I'm quite willing to sacrifice some cycles for some quality and security. (It's not always the case, though, but I think those cases are rare.)
Still, RegEx is very powerful. With great power, comes great responsibility. It doesn't mean you'll use it whenever you can. Only where it's power is worth using.
As someone mentioned above, HTML parsing with RegEx is like a Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun. Don't overdo anything, RegEx included.
You should also avoid floating-point numbers at all cost. That is when you're programming in an embedded-environment.
Seriously: if you're in normal software-development you should actually use regex if you need to do something that can't be achieved with simpler string-operations. I'd say that any normal programmer won't be able to implement something that's best done using regexps in a way that is faster than the correspondig regular expression. Once compiled, a regular expression works as a state-maschine that is optimized to near perfection.
Overhyped? No
Under-Utilized Properly? Yes
If more people knew how to use a decent parser generator, there would be fewer people using regular expressions.
In my belief, they are overused by people quite a bit (I've had this discussion a number of times on SO).
But they are a very useful construct because they deliver a lot of expressive power in a very small piece of code.
You only have to look at an example such as a Western Australian car registration number. The RE would be
re.match("[1-9] [A-Z]{3} [0-9]{3}")
whilst the code to check this would be substantially longer, in either a simple 9-if-statement or slightly better looping version.
I hardly ever use complex REs in my code because:
I know how the RE engines work and I can use domain knowledge to code up faster solutions (that 9-if variant would almost certainly be faster than a one-shot RE compile/execute cycle); and
I find code more readable if it's broken up logically and commented. This isn't easy with most REs (although I have seen one that allows inline comments).
I have seen people suggest the use of REs for extracting a fixed-size substring at a fixed location. Why these people don't just use substring() is beyond me. My personal thought is that they're just trying to show how clever they are (but it rarely works).
Don't avoid it, but ask youself if they're the best tool for the task you have to solve. Maybe sometimes regex are difficult to use or debug, but they're really usefull in some situations. The question is to use the apropiate tool for each task, and usually this is not obvious.
There is a very good reason to use regular expressions in scripting languages (such as Ruby, Python, Perl, JavaScript and Lua): parsing a string with carefully optimized regular expression executes faster than the equivalent custom while loop which scans the string character-by-character. For compiled languages (such as C and C++, and also C# and Java most of the time) usually the opposite is true: the custom while loop executes faster.
One more reason why regular expressions are so popular: they express the programmer's intention in an extremely compact way: a single-line regexp can do as much as a 10- or 20-line while loop.
Overhyped? No, if you have ever taken a Parsing or Compiler course, you would understand that this is like saying addition and multiplication is overhyped for math problems.
It is a system for solving parsing problems.
some problems are simpler and don't require regular expressions, some are harder and require better tools.
I've seen so many people argue about whether a given regex is correct or not that I'm starting to think the best way to write one is to ask how to do it on StackOverflow and then let the regex gurus fight it out.
I think they're especially useful in JavaScript. JavaScript is transmitted (so should be small) and interpreted from text (although this is changing in the new browsers with V8 and JIT compilation), so a good internal regex engine has a chance to be faster than an algorithm.
I'd say if there is a clear and easy way to do it with string operations, use the string operations. But if you can do a nice regex instead of writing your own state machine interpreter, use the regex.
Regular Expressions are one of the most useful things programmers can learn, they allow to speed up and minimize your code if you know how to handle them.
Regular expressions are often easier to understand than the non-regex equivalent, especially in a language with native regular expressions, especially in a code section where other things that need to be done with regexes are present.
That doesn't meant they're not overused. The only time string.match(/\?/) is better than string.contains('?') is if it's significantly more readable with the surrounding code, or if you know that .contains is implemented with regexes anyway
I often use regex in my IDE to quick fix code. Try to do the following without regex.
glVector3f( -1.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f ); -> glVector3f( center.x - 1.0f, center.y + 1.0f, center.z + 1.0f );
Without regex, it's a pain, but WITH regex...
s/glVector3f\((.*?),(.*?),(.*?)\)/glVector3f(point.x+$1,point.y+$2,point.z+$3)/g
Awesome.
I'd agree that regular expressions are sometimes used inappropriately. Certainly for very simple cases like what you're describing, but also for cases where a more powerful parser is needed.
One consideration is that sometimes you have a condition that needs to do something simple like test for presence of a question mark character. But it's often true that the condition becomes more complex. For example, to find a question mark character that isn't preceded by a space or beginning-of-line, and isn't followed by an alphanumeric character. Or the character may be either a question mark or the Spanish "¿" (which may appear at the start of a word). You get the idea.
If conditions are expected to evolve into something that's less simple to do with a plain call to String.contains("?"), then it could be easier to code it using a very simple regular expression from the start.
It comes down to the right tool for the job.
I usually hear two arguments against regular expressions:
1) They're computationally inefficient, and
2) They're hard to understand.
Honestly, I can't understand how either are legitimate claims.
1) This may be true in an academic sense. A complex expression can double back on itself may times over. Does it really matter though? How many millions of computations a second can a server processor do these days? I've dealt with some crazy expressions, and I've never seen a regexp be the bottle neck. By far it's DB interaction, followed by bandwidth.
2) Hard for about a week. The most complicated regexp is no more complex than HTML - it's just a familiarity problem. If you needed HTML once every 3 months, would you get it 100% each time? Work with them on a daily basis and they're just as clear as any other language syntax.
I write validation software. REGEXP's are second nature. Every fifth line of code has a regexp, and for the life of me I can't understand why people make a big deal about them. I've never seen a regexp slow down processing, and I've seen even the most dull 'programmers' pick up the syntax.
Regexp's are powerful, efficient, and useful. Why avoid them?
I wouldn't say avoid them entirely, as they are QUITE handy at times. However, it is important to realize the fundamental mechanisms underneath. Depending on your implementation, you could have up to exponential run-time for a search, but since searches are usually bounded by some constant number of backtraces, you can end up with the slowest linear run-time you ever saw.
If you want the best answer, you'll have to examine your particular implementation as well as the data you intend to search on.
From memory, wikipedia has a decent article on regular expressions and the underlying algorithms.
I use regex buddy which takes in a regex and then gives out the meaning of it from which one gets what it could be doing? On similar lines is it possible to have some engine which takes natural language input describing about the pattern one needs to match/replace and gives out the correct(almost correct) regex for that description?
e.g. Match the whole word 'dio' in some file
So regex for that could be : <dio>
or
\bdio\b
-AD.
P.S. = I think few guys here might think this as a 'subjective' 'not-related-to-programming' question, but i just need to ask this question nonetheless. For myself. - Thanks.
This would be complicated to program, because you need a natural language parser able to derive meaning. Unless you limit it to a strict subset -- in which case, you're reinventing an expression language, and you'll eventually wind up back at regular expressions -- only with bigger symbols. so what's the gain?
Regexes were developed for a reason -- they're the simplest, most accurate representation possible.
There is a Symbolix Regular Expression Builder package for Emacs, but looking at it, I think that regular expressions are easier to work with.
Short answer: no, not until artificial intelligence improves A LOT.
If you wrote something like this, you'd have a very limited syntax. For someone to know "Match the whole word 'dio' in some file", they would basically need to have significant knowledge of regular expressions. At that point, just use regular expressions.
For non-technical users, this will never work unless you limit it to basic "find this phrase" or, maybe, "find lines starting/ending with ??". They're never going to come up with something like this:
Find lines containing a less-than symbol followed by the string 'img' followed by one or more groupings of: some whitespace followed by one or more letters followed by either a double-quoted string or a single-quoted string, and those groupings are followed by any length of whitespace then a slash and a greater-than sign.
That's my attempt at a plain-language version of this relatively simple regex:
/<img(\s+[a-z]+=("[^"]*"|'[^']*'))+\s*/>/i
Yeah, I agree with you that it is subjective. But I will answer your question because I think that you have asked a wrong question.
The answer is "YES". Almost anything can be coded and this would be a rather simple application to code. Will it work perfectly? No, it wouldn't because natural language is quite complex to parse and interpret. But it is possible to write such an engine with some constraints.
Generating a regex via the use of a natural language processor is quite possible. Prolog is supposed to be a good language choice for this kind of problem. In practice, however, what you'd be doing, in effect, is designing your own input language which provides a regex as output. If your goal is to produce regexs for a specific task, this might in fact be useful. Perhaps the task you are doing tends to require certain formulations that are doable but not built into regular expressions. Though whether this will be more effective than just creating the regexs one at a time depends on your project. Usually this is probably not the case, since your own language is not going to be as well-known or as well-documented as regex. If your goal is to produce a replacement for regex whose output will be parsed as a regex, I think you're asking a lot. Not to say people haven't done the same sort of thing before (e.g. the C++ language as an 'improvement' that runs, originally, on C++).
try the open source mac application Ruby Regexp Machine, at http://www.rubyregexp.sf.net. It is written in ruby, so you can use some of the code even if you are not on mac. You can describe a lot of simple regular expresions in an easy english grammar. As a disclosure, i did make this tool.
It seems that the choice to use string parsing vs. regular expressions comes up on a regular basis for me anytime a situation arises that I need part of a string, information about said string, etc.
The reason that this comes up is that we're evaluating a soap header's action, after it has been parsed into something manageable via the OperationContext object for WCF and then making decisions on that. Right now, the simple solution seems to be basic substring'ing to keep the implementation simple, but part of me wonders if RegEx would be better or more robust. The other part of me wonders if it'd be like using a shotgun to kill a fly in our particular scenario.
So I have to ask, what's the typical threshold that people use when trying to decide to use RegEx over typical string parsing. Note that I'm not very strong in Regular Expressions, and because of this, I try to shy away unless it's absolutely vital to avoid introducing more complication than I need.
If you couldn't tell by my choice of abbreviations, this is in .NET land (C#), but I believe that doesn't have much bearing on the question.
EDIT: It seems as per my typical Raybell charm, I've been too wordy or misleading in my question. I want to apologize. I was giving some background to help give clues as to what I was doing, not mislead people.
I'm basically looking for a guideline as to when to use substring, and variations thereof, over Regular Expressions and vice versa. And while some of the answers may have missed this (and again, my fault), I've genuinely appreciated them and up-voted as accordingly.
My main guideline is to use regular expressions for throwaway code, and for user-input validation. Or when I'm trying to find a specific pattern within a big glob of text. For most other purposes, I'll write a grammar and implement a simple parser.
One important guideline (that's really hard to sidestep, though I see people try all the time) is to always use a parser in cases where the target language's grammar is recursive.
For example, consider a tiny "expression language" for evaluating parenthetized arithmetic expressions. Examples of "programs" in this language would look like this:
1 + 2
5 * (10 - 6)
((1 + 1) / (2 + 2)) / 3
A grammar is easy to write, and looks something like this:
DIGIT := ["0"-"9"]
NUMBER := (DIGIT)+
OPERATOR := ("+" | "-" | "*" | "/" )
EXPRESSION := (NUMBER | GROUP) (OPERATOR EXPRESSION)?
GROUP := "(" EXPRESSION ")"
With that grammar, you can build a recursive descent parser in a jiffy.
An equivalent regular expression is REALLY hard to write, because regular expressions don't usually have very good support for recursion.
Another good example is JSON ingestion. I've seen people try to consume JSON with regular expressions, and it's INSANE. JSON objects are recursive, so they're just begging for regular grammars and recursive descent parsers.
Hmmmmmmm... Looking at other people's responses, I think I may have answered the wrong question.
I interpreted it as "when should use use a simple regex, rather than a full-blown parser?" whereas most people seem to have interpreted the question as "when should you roll your own clumsy ad-hoc character-by-character validation scheme, rather than using a regular expression?"
Given that interpretation, my answer is: never.
Okay.... one more edit.
I'll be a little more forgiving of the roll-your-own scheme. Just... don't call it "parsing" :o)
I think a good rule of thumb is that you should only use string-matching primitives if you can implement ALL of your logic using a single predicate. Like this:
if (str.equals("DooWahDiddy")) // No problemo.
if (str.contains("destroy the earth")) // Okay.
if (str.indexOf(";") < str.length / 2) // Not bad.
Once your conditions contain multiple predicates, then you've started inventing your own ad hoc string validation language, and you should probably just man up and study some regular expressions.
if (str.startsWith("I") && str.endsWith("Widget") &&
(!str.contains("Monkey") || !str.contains("Pox"))) // Madness.
Regular expressions really aren't that hard to learn. Compared to a huuuuge full-featured language like C# with dozens of keywords, primitive types, and operators, and a standard library with thousands of classes, regular expressions are absolutely dirt simple. Most regex implementations support about a dozen or so operations (give or take).
Here's a great reference:
http://www.regular-expressions.info/
PS: As a bonus, if you ever do want to learn about writing your own parsers (with lex/yacc, ANTLR, JavaCC, or other similar tools), learning regular expressions is a great preparation, because parser-generator tools use many of the same principles.
The regex can be
easier to understand
express more clearly the intent
much shorter
easier to change/adapt
In some situations all of those advantages would be achieved by using a regex, in others only some are achieved (the regex is not really easy to understand for example) and in yet other situations the regex is harder to understand, obfuscates the intent, longer and hard to change.
The more of those (and possibly other) advantages I gain from the regex, the more likely I am to use them.
Possible rule of thumb: if understanding the regex would take minutes for someone who is somewhat familiar with regular expressions, then you don't want to use it (unless the "normal" code is even more convoluted ;-).
Hm ... still no simple rule-of-thumb, sorry.
[W]e're evaluating a soap header's
action and making decisions on that
Never use regular expressions or basic string parsing to process XML. Every language in common usage right now has perfectly good XML support. XML is a deceptively complex standard and it's unlikely your code will be correct in the sense that it will properly parse all well-formed XML input, and even it if does, you're wasting your time because (as just mentioned) every language in common usage has XML support. It is unprofessional to use regular expressions to parse XML.
To answer your question, in general the usage of regular expressions should be minimized as they're not very readable. Oftentimes you can combine string parsing and regular expressions (perhaps in a loop) to create a much simpler solution than regular expressions alone.
I would agree with what benjismith said, but want to elaborate just a bit. For very simple syntaxes, basic string parsing can work well, but so can regexes. I wouldn't call them overkill. If it works, it works - go with what you find simplest. And for moderate to intermediate string parsing, a regex is usually the way to go.
As soon as you start finding yourself needing to define a grammar however, i.e. complex string parsing, get back to using some sort of finite state machine or the likes as quickly as you can. Regexes simply don't scale well, to use the term loosely. They get complex, hard to interpret, and even incapable.
I've seen at least one project where the use of regexes kept growing and growing and soon they had trouble inserting new functionality. When it finally came time to do a new major release, they dumped all the regexes and went the route of a grammar parser.
When your required transformation isn't basic -- but is still conceptually simple.
no reason to pull out Regex if you're doing a straight string replacement, for example... its easier to just use the string.Replace
on the other hand, a complex rule with many conditionals or special cases that would take more than 50 characters of regex can be a nightmare to maintain later on if you don't explicitly write it out
I would always use a regex unless it's something very simple such as splitting a comma-separated string. If I think there's a chance the strings might one day get more complicated, I'll probably start with a regex.
I don't subscribe to the view that regexes are hard or complicated. It's one tool that every developer should learn and learn well. They have a myriad of uses, and once learned, this is exactly the sort of thing you never have to worry about ever again.
Regexes are rarely overkill - if the match is simple, so is the regex.
I would think the easiest way to know when to use regular expressions and when not to, is when your string search requires an IF/THEN statement or anything resembling this or that logic, then you need something better than a simple string comparison which is where regex shines.
Please don't answer the obvious, but what are the limit signs that tell us a problem should not be solved using regular expressions?
For example: Why is a complete email validation too complex for a regular expression?
Regular expressions are a textual representation of finite-state automata. That is to say, they are limited to only non-recursive matching. This means that you can't have any concept of "scope" or "sub-match" in your regexp. Consider the following problem:
(())()
Are all the open parens matched with a close paren?
Obviously, when we look at this as human beings, we can easily see that the answer is "yes". However, no regular expression will be able to reliably answer this question. In order to do this sort of processing, you will need a full pushdown automaton (like a DFA with a stack). This is most commonly found in the guise of a parser such as those generated by ANTLR or Bison.
A few things to look out for:
beginning and ending tag detection -- matched pairing
recursion
needing to go backwards (though you can reverse the string, but that's a hack)
regexes, as much as I love them, aren't good at those three things. And remember, keep it simple! If you're trying to build a regex that does "everything", then you're probably doing it wrong.
When you need to parse an expression that's not defined by a regular language.
What it comes down to is using common sense. If what you are trying to match becomes an unmanageable, monster regular expression then you either need to break it up into small, logical sub-regular expressions or you need to start re-thinking your solution.
Take email addresses (as per your example). This simple regular expression (taken from RegEx buddy) matches 99% of all emails out there:
\b[A-Z0-9._%+-]+#[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}\b
It is short and to the point and you will rarely run into issues with it. However, as the author of RegEx buddy points out, if your email address is in the rare top-level domain ".museum" it will not be accepted.
To truely match all email addresses you need to adhere to the standard known as RFC 2822. It outlines the multitude of ways email addresses can be formatted and it is extremely complex.
Here is a sample regular expression attempting to adhere to RFC 2822:
(?:[a-z0-9!#$%&'*+/=?^_`{|}~-]+(?:\.[a-z0-9!#$%&'*+/=?^_`{|}~-]+)*|"
(?:[\x01-\x08\x0b\x0c\x0e-\x1f\x21\x23-\x5b\x5d-\x7f]|\\[\x01-\x09\x0b\x
0c\x0e-\x7f])*")#(?:(?:[a-z0-9](?:[a-z0-9-]*[a-z0-9])?\.)+[a-z0-9]
(?:[a-z0-9-]*[a-z0-9])?|\[(?:(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\.)
{3}(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?|[a-z0-9-]*[a-z0-9]:(?:[\x01-\x08
\x0b\x0c\x0e-\x1f\x21-\x5a\x53-\x7f]|\\[\x01-\x09\x0b\x0c\x0e-\x7f])+)\])
This obviously becomes a problem of diminishing returns. It is better to use the easily maintained implementation that matches 99% of email addresses vs the monsterous one that accepts 99.9% of them.
Regular expressions are a great tool to have in your programmers toolbox but they aren't a solution to all your parsing problems. If you find your RegEx solution starting to become extremely complex you need to either attempt to logically break it up into smaller regular expressions to match portions of your text or you need to start looking at other methods to solve your problem. Similarly, there are simply problems that Regular Expressions, due to their nature, can't solve (as one poster said, not adhering to Regular Language).
Regular expressions are suited for tokenizing, finding or identifying individual bits of text, e.g. finding keywords, strings, comments, etc. in source code.
Regular expressions are not suited for determining the relationship between multiple bits of text, e.g. finding a block of source code with properly paired braces. You need a parser for that. The parser can use regular expressions for tokenizing the input, while the parser itself determines how the different regex matches fit together.
Essentially, you're going to far with your regular expressions if you start thinking about "balancing groups" (.NET's capture group subtraction feature) or "recursion" (Perl 5.10 and PCRE).
Here's a good quote from Raymond Chen:
Don't make regular expressions do what they're not good at. If you want to match a simple pattern, then match a simple pattern. If you want to do math, then do math. As commenter Maurits put it, "The trick is not to spend time developing a combination hammer/screwdriver, but just use a hammer and a screwdriver.
Source
Solve the problem with a regex, then give it to somebody else conversant in regexes. If they can't tell you what it does (or at least say with confidence that they understand) in about 10 minutes, it's too complex.
Sure sign to stop using regexps is this: if you have many grouping braces '()' and many alternatives '|' then it is a sure sign that you try to do a (complex) parsing with regular expressions.
Add to the mix Perl extensions, backreferences, etc and soon you have yourself a parser that is hard to read, hard to modify, and hard to reason about it's properties (e.g. is there an input on which this parser will work in a exponential time).
This is a time to stop regexing and start parsing (with hand-made parser, parser generators or parser combinators).
Along with tremendous expressions, there are principal limitations on the words, which can be handled by regexp.
For instance you can not not write regexp for word described by n chars a, then n chars b, where n can be any, more strictly .
In different languages regexp is a extension of Regular language, but time of parsing can be extremely large and this code is non-portable.
Whenever you can't be sure it really solves the problem, for example:
HTML parsing
Email validation
Language parsers
Especially so when there already exist tools that solve the problem in a totally understandable way.
Regex can be used in the domains I mentioned, but only as a subset of the whole problem and for specific, simple cases.
This goes beyond the technical limitations of regexes (regular languages + extensions), the maintainability and readability limit is surpassed a lot earlier than the technical limit in most cases.
A problem is too complex for regular expressions when constraints of the problem can change after the solution is written. So, in your example, how can you be sure an email address is valid when you do not have access to the target mail system to verify that the email address is attached to a valid user? You can't.
My limit is a Regex pattern that's about 30-50 characters long (varying depending on how much is fixed text and how much is regex commands)
This may sound stupid but I often lament not being able to do database type of queries using regular expression. Now especially more then before because I am entering those types of search string all the time on search engines. its very difficult, if not impossible to search for +complex AND +"regular expression"
For example, how do I search in emacs for commands that have both Buffer and Window in their name? I need to search separately for .*Buffer.*Window and .*Window.*Buffer