(09:47:43) chad: Oh and emacs regexes suck.
(09:48:01) lakin: by suck, you mean they're different?
(09:48:07) chad: Yes, and they suck.
(09:48:08) chad: ;)
(09:48:14) lakin: define suck?
(09:48:24) chad: They backslashing is all wonky.
(09:48:26) lakin: cause I'm pretty sure they're computationally equivalent.
(09:48:58) chad: I googled for "emacs regular expressions suck" (no quotes) and found 155 000 hits.
(09:49:39) lakin: google for "regular expressions suck" and you get 1.6 million hits.
(09:49:58) lakin: so emacs regexes suck less than other regexes, ie they represent a lesser portion of the regex suckage that is out there.
(09:50:03) chad: that's just all the loser programmers out there. ;)
(09:50:08) chad: :)
(09:51:15) lakin: http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=perl+regular+expressions+suck&word2=emacs+regular+expressions+suck
(09:51:43) chad: shit!
(09:51:47) chad: that's amazing.
(09:51:53) chad: I don't believe it.
(09:52:03) chad: Perl is the only language where regexes make sense.
(09:52:07) chad: Oh.
(09:52:09) chad: I get it.
(09:52:26) chad: perl regexes make sense to me and the others are all screwed up.
(09:52:42) chad: that means anyone who uses one of those "lesser" languages doesn't get perl regexes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
But wouldn't you know it, my search wasn't doing what I wanted. In Perl, which is to say, Ruby, I would have probably gotten it done quite zippily, since that's the regex syntax I'm most familiar with. But Emacs regular expressions are, well, irregular, which is to say they suck. - Steve Yegge
Post a Comment