🔥 Popular | Latest

Beautiful, Community, and God: 21 Answers votes oldest newest You can't parse [X]HTML with regex. Because HTML can't be parsed by regex. Regex is not a tool that can be used to correctly parse HTML. As I have answered in HTML-and-regex questions here so many times before, the use of regex will not allow you to consume HTML. Regular expressions are a tool that is insufficiently sophisticated to understand the constructs employed by HTML. HTML is not a regular language and hence cannot be parsed by regular expressions. Regex queries are not equipped to break down HTML into its meaningful parts. so many times but it is not getting to me. Even enhanced irregular regular expressions as used by Perl are not up to the task of parsing HTML. You will never make me crack. HTML is a language of sufficient complexity that it cannot be parsed by regular expressions. Even Jon Skeet cannot parse HTML using regular expressions. Every time you attempt to parse HTML with regular expressions, the unholy child weeps the blood of virgins, and Russian hackers pwn your webapp. Parsing HTML with regex summons tainted souls into the realm of the living. HTML and regex go together like love, marriage, and ritual infanticide. The <center> cannot hold it is too late. The force of regex and HTML together in the same conceptual space will destroy your mind like so much watery putty. If you parse HTML with regex you are giving in to Them and their blasphemous ways which doom us all to inhuman toil for the One whose Name cannot be expressed in the Basic Multilingual Plane, he comes. HTML-plus-regexp will liquify the nerves of the sentient whilst you observe, your psyche withering in the onslaught of horror. Regex-based HTML parsers are the cancer that is killing StackOverflow it is too late it is too late we cannot be saved the trangession of a child ensures regex will consume all living tissue (except for HTML which it cannot, as previously prophesied) dear lord help us how can anyone survive this scourge using regex to parse HTML has doomed humanity to an eternity of dread torture and security holes using regex as a tool to process HTML establishes a breach between this world and the dread realm of čorrupt entities (like SGML entities, but more corrupt) a mere glimpse of the world of reg ex parsers for HTML will instantly transport a programmer's consciousness into a world of ceaseless screaming, he comes-the pestilent slithy regex-infection will devour your HTML parser, application and existence for all time like Vişual Basic only worse he comes he comes do not fight he comes, his uņholy radiance destroping all enlightenment, HTML tags leaking frọm your eyesiike liquid pain, the song of regular expression parsing-will extinguish the voices of mortal man from the sphere I can see it can you see t it is beautiful the f inal snuf fing of the lies of Man ALL ĮS LOSTALL IS LOST the pony he comes he comes hejcemes the ichor permeates al MY FACEFACEh god no NO NOOoo Ne stop the an ges aře not reâj ZALGO IS TON THË PONY, HECOMES 1811 Have you tried using an XML parser instead? link edit flag edited Nov 14 at 0:18 community wiki bobince regex and html
Save
God, Stephen, and Game: Python: What if everything was a dict? Java: What if everything was an object? JavaScript: What if everything was a dict *and an object? C: What if everything was a pointer? APL: What if everything was an array? Tcl: What if everything was a string? Prolog: What if everything was a term? LISP: What if everything was a pair? Scheme: What if everything was a function? Haskell: What if everything was a monad? Assembly: What if everything was a register? Coq: What if everything was a type/proposition? COBOL: WHAT IF EVERYTHING WAS UPPERCASE? C#: What if everything was like Java, but different? Ruby: What if everything was monkey patched? Pascal: BEGIN What if everything was structured? END C++: What if we added everything to the language? C++11: What if we forgot to stop adding stuff? Rust: What if garbage collection didn't exist? Go: What if we tried designing Ca second time? Perl: What if shell, sed, and awk were one language? Perl6: What if we took the joke too far? PHP: What if we wanted to make SQL injection easier? VB: What if we wanted to allow anyone to program? VB.NET: What if we wanted to stop them again? Forth: What if everything was a stack? ColorForth: What if the stack was green? PostScript: What if everything was printed at 600dpi? XSLT: What if everything was an XML element? Make: What if everything m4: What if everything was incomprehensibly quoted? Scala: What if Haskell ran on the JVM? was a dependency? Clojure: What if LISP ran on the JVM? Lua: What if game developers got tired of C++? Mathematica: What if Stephen Wolfram invented everything? Malbolge: What if there is no god? When you’re trying to make a new language

When you’re trying to make a new language

Save
Beautiful, God, and Love: You can't parse [X]HTML with regex. Because HTML can't be parsed by regex. Regex is not a tool that can be used to correctly parse HTML. As I have answered in HTML-and-regex questions here so many times before, the use of regex will not allow you to consume HTML. Regular expressions are a tool that is insufficiently sophisticated to understand the constructs employed by HTML. HTML is not a regular language and hence cannot be parsed by regular expressions. Regex queries are not equipped to break down HTML into its meaningful parts. so many times but it is not getting to me. Even enhanced irregular regular expressions as used by Perl are not up to the task of parsing HTML. You will never make me crack. HTML is a language of sufficient complexity that it cannot be parsed by regular expressions. Even Jon Skeet cannot parse HTML using regular expressions Every time you attempt to parse HTML with regular expressions, the unholy child weeps the blood of virgins, and Russian hackers pwn your webapp. Parsing HTML with regex summons tainted souls into the realm of the living. HTML and regex go together like love, marriage, and ritual infanticide The <center> cannot hold it is too late. The force of regex and HTML together in the same conceptual space will destroy your mind like so much watery putty. If you parse HTML with regex you are giving in to Them and their blasphemous ways which doom us all to inhuman toil for the One whose Name cannot be expressed in the Basic Multilingual Plane, he comes. HTML-plus regexp will liquify the neryes of the sentient whilst you observe, your psyche withering in the onslaught of horror. Regex-based HTML parsers are the cancer that is killing StackOverflow it is too late it is too late we cannot be saved the trangession of a child ensures regex will consume all living tissue (except for HTML which it cannot, as previously prophesied) dear lord help us how car anyone survive this scourge using regex to parse HTML has doomed humanity to an eternity of dread torture and security holes using regex as a tool to process HTML establishes a breach between this world and the dread realm of cörrupt entities (like SGML entities, but more corrupt) a mere glimpse of the world of regex parsers for HTML will instantly transport a programmer's consciousness into a world of ceaseless screaming, he comes,the pestilent slithy regex-infection wil I devour your HTML parser, application and existence for all time like Visual Bąsic only worse he comes he comes do not fight he comes, his unholy radiance destroying all enlightenment, HTML tags leakjng frqm your eyes/like liquid pain, the song of regular expressien parsing-will extinguish the voices of mortal man from the sphgre I can see it can you see i it is beautiful the f inal 4421 snuf fing of the lies of Man ALL IS LOST ALL IS LOST the pory he comes he comese comes tge ichor permeates all MY FACE MY F Fish god no NO NOOOO ΝΘ stop the anges . ạre not rea) ZALGo is TOM) THE PONY HEgOMES Unicöde
Save
Church, Doctor, and Fucking: 5909 "I decided that never again would there be a pregnant woman in Auschwitz." patron-saint-of-smart-asses: everybody-look-right: washingtonstateconservative: ctrlgeek: webbgirl34: thebigsisteryouneveraskedfor: Gisella Perl was forced to work as a doctor in Auschwitz concentration camp during the holocaust. She was ordered to report ever pregnant women do the physician Dr. Josef Mengele, who would then use the women for cruel experiments (e.g. vivisections) before killing them. She saved hundreds of women by performing abortions on them before their pregnancy was discovered, without having access to basic medical supplies. She became known as the “Angel of Auschwitz”. After being rescued from Bergen-Belsen concentration camp she tried to commit suicide, but survived, recovered and kept working as a gynecologist, delivering more than 3000 babies. I want to nail this to the forehead of every anti-abortionist who uses the word “Holocaust” when talking about legal abortions. Yeah… she became a gynecologist and was extremely pro-life after she got out of the camps. In an interview with Nadine Brozan for the New York Times in 1982, Dr. Perl recalled her initial experiences with Dr. Mengele’s “cure” for pregnancy in Auschwitz. ”Dr. Mengele told me that it was my duty to report every pregnant woman to him,” Dr. Perl said. ”He said that they would go to another camp for better nutrition, even for milk. So women began to run directly to him, telling him, ‘I am pregnant.’ I learned that they were all taken to the research block to be used as guinea pigs, and then two lives would be thrown into the crematorium. I decided that never again would there be a pregnant woman in Auschwitz.” Let’s analyze the situation: mother and child alike were both going to be killed anyway if the pregnancy was discovered. Leaving wasn’t an option. Freedom was nonexistent, and the perspectives of all involved were colored by living in hell on earth.   After the war, she dedicated her life to Holocaust remembrance, infertility treatment, and delivering babies – not destroying them. The New York Times quotes her as saying, “No one will ever know what it meant to me to destroy those babies, but if I had not done it, both mother and child would have been cruelly murdered.” Perl never pretended they weren’t babies, that their lives didn’t matter, or that their deaths weren’t cruel. Holy crap. I literally got a ton of shit a few months ago for saying that maybe, just maybe, Perl’s actions don’t justify abortion as a whole. Well, it goes to show that I should’ve done more research, to find out  that Perl herself doesn’t pretend that was she did was right, or that it justifies abortion now. There was another woman, a midwife, who was devout Catholic and helped to care for pregnant women and hide the babies, and continued her work in midwifery after the war. Last I heard she was in the canonization process in the Catholic Church. Fucking THANK YOU I’m so tired of pro-choicers using her as a “gotcha”. She had to do a terrible thing in a terrible circumstance. That has literally no relation to first world abortion legislation today.
Save
Beautiful, God, and Love: You can't parse [X]HTML with regex. Because HTML can't be parsed by regex. Regex is not a tool that can be used to correctly parse HTML. As I have answered in HTML-and-regex questions here so many times before, the use of regex will not allow you to consume HTML. Regular expressions are a tool that is insufficiently sophisticated to understand the constructs employed by HTML. HTML is not a regular language and hence cannot be parsed by regular expressions. Regex queries are not equipped to break down HTML into its meaningful parts. so many times but it is not getting to me. Even enhanced irregular regular expressions as used by Perl are not up to the task of parsing HTML. You will never make me crack. HTML is a language of sufficient complexity that it cannot be parsed by regular expressions. Even Jon Skeet cannot parse HTML using regular expressions. Every time you attempt to parse HTML with regular expressions, the unholy child weeps the blood of virgins, and Russian hackers pwn your webapp. Parsing HTML with regex summons tainted souls into the realm of the living. HTML and regex go together like love, marriage, and ritual infanticide The <center> cannot hold it is too late. The force of regex and HTML together in the same conceptual space will destroy your mind like so much watery putty. If you parse HTML with regex you are giving in to Them and their blasphemous ways which doom us all to inhuman toil for the One whose Name cannot be expressed in the Basic Multilingual Plane, he comes. HTML-plus regexp will liquify the neryes of the sentient whilst you observe, your psyche withering in the onslaught of horror. Regēx-based HTML parsers are the cancer that is killing StackOverflow it is too late it is too late we cannot be saved the trangession of a child ensures regex will consume all living tissue (except for HTML which it cannot, as previously prophesied) dear lord help us how can anyone survive this scourge using regex to parse HTML has doomed humanity to an eternity of dread torture and security holes using regex as a tool to process HTML establishes a breach between this world and the dread realm of corrupt entities (like SGML entities, but more corrupt) a mere glimpse of the world of regex parsers for HTML will instantly transport a programmer's consciousness into a world of ceaseless screaming, he comes, the pestilent-slithy regex-infection wil I devour your HTML parser, application and existence for all time like Visual Basic only worse he comes he comes do not fight he comøs, his unholy radiañcé destroying all enlightenment, HTML tags leaking from your eyeslike liquid pain, the song of regular expressien parsing-will extinguish the voices of mortal man from the sphgre I can see it can you see ft it is beautiful the f inal snuf fing of the lies of Man ALL ISLOSTALL IS LOST the pony h comes he com t egichor permeates al My FACE tyEACE b god no NO NOOOO NO stop the an les are not 4422 DA Have you tried using an XML parser instead? How do I replace XHTML tags with RegEx?
Save
God, Stephen, and Game: Python: What if everything was a dict? Java: What if everything was an object? JavaScript: What if everything was a dict and* an object? C: What if everything was a pointer? APL: What if everything was an array? Tcl: What if everything was a string? Prolog: What if everything was a term? LISP: What if everything was a pair? Scheme: What if everything was a function? Haskell: What if everything was a monad? Assembly: What if everything was a register? Coq: What if everything was a type/proposition? COBOL: WHAT IF EVERYTHING WAS UPPERCASE? C#: What if everything was like Java, but different? Ruby: What if everything was monkey patched? Pascal: BEGIN What if everything was structured? END e C++: What if we added everything to the language? C++11: What if we forgot to stop adding stuff? Rust: What if garbage collection didn't exist? Go: What if we tried designing C a second time? Perl: What if shell, sed, and awk were one language? Perl6: What if we took the joke too far? PHP: What if we wanted to make SQL injection easier? VB: What if we wanted to allow anyone to program? . VB.NET: What if we wanted to stop them again? Forth: What if everything was a stack? ColorForth: What if the stack was green? PostScript: What if everything was printed at 600dpi? XSLT: What if everything was an XML element? Make: What if everything was a dependency? m4: What if everything was incomprehensibly quoted Scala: What if Haskell ran on the JVM? Clojure: What if LISP ran on the JVM? Lua: What if game developers got tired of C++? Mathematica: What if Stephen Wolfram invented everything? Malbolge: What if there is no god? @nixcraft What if we tried designing C a second time?

What if we tried designing C a second time?

Save