Comments by "Vitaly L" (@vitalyl1327) on "IT WAS A REGEX?!? - Full CrowdStrike Report Released" video.

Not to mention immutable root fs and a/b boot, which all mature OSes do, but windows somehow is incapable of...
6
Also CrowdStrike - try to shut down ClownStrike parody site with DMCA. Because reasons.
6
Using regular expressions is a marker of incompetence, so the lack of tests is just a cherry on a top, and is as expected from the incompetent developers.
5
@dusanknezevic9072 parsing speed have not been a meaningful design consideration for decades, so I cannot see a single use case for regular expressions, ever. And, yes, I agree that it is particularly insane to put them in a kernel module.
3
@TheRealXartaX so, you have no idea what PEG or GLR is, yet you're soooo confident.
2
@bigdogdman1 again, there is never a reason to use regular expressions, because there are always much better tools, for every use case.
2
Not all the compilers. Only those made before 21st century, and those made by people who lived under a rock for the last 20 years.
1
@PassifloraCerulea lexing is outdated, lexerless parsing is better on so many levels. People use PEG or GLR to parse these days, both are lexerless and allow different tokens in different contexts (as in, no tokenisation is needed at all).
1
@TheRealXartaX found an uneducated dimwit who have no idea how to parse in 21st century. Ever heard of PEG, dimwit?
1
@TheRealXartaX found an ignorant regex enjoyer. You people are hilarious. So primiitve, so dumb, yet so confident.
1
@M0J0-RL236 Huh? Every competent developer will prefer a PEG or a GLR to regular expressions. Only the incompetent ones do not know the alternatives.
1
@M0J0-RL236 I do not work with incompetent people to start with. And I'd say, those who tolerate incompetence are indeed horrible engineers and awful teammates. I do not hire such people.
1
@M0J0-RL236 look, people working for a company like Crowdstrike are supposed to be professionals. Educated, well-rounded engineers. Not some kind of bootcamp "graduates", high school dropouts or whatever else is now trying to sneak into this industry. They are supposed to know the basics. It is ok when you have to teach an intern. But when an "experienced" professional does not know fundamental things, it is a moral obligation to mock them viciously. Such people have no place in this industry and are a root of all its ills.
1
@chrisdaman4179 the problems start when code monkeys start using "pattern matching for strings" to parse strings. And dim code monkeys cannot think of any proper way to parse. Very rarely people use regular expressions to answer the question "does this string match the pattern, yes or no?", they use them to parse the string or at least split it in parts. Those who do it are ignorant, incompetent and should have never been allowed anywhere near any coding.
1
@TheRealXartaX the funny bit here is that it is you who have no mental capacity to understand programming. Hilarious, is not it? Regular languages are outdated and have no use in the 21st century. Go back to school, you missed all the important bits of CS.
1
People who still use regular expressions in 21st century - who tf are they?!?
1
@chrisdaman4179 bullcrap. Nobody should be using regular expressions since 2006, when Ford published his paper. Regular expressions are outdated and useless. Ignorant "developers" like you who carry on using the outdated and outright broken technology are the reason why software is so crappy. Ever heard of PEGs? No? Then go back to school.
1
@debasishraychawdhuri you should not use lexers. Lexerless parsing is superior on all possible levels.
1
@CommanderRiker0 regex is not a "car". It's a primitive catapult. So you should blame yourself for smashing yourself into a wall by using a catapult instead of a car.
1
@CommanderRiker0 you're deliberately being obtuse, or it's a real cognitive impairment? Again: name a single real world use case for regular expressions. Just a single one. You've embarrassed yourself already, so you should not really worry about a deeper embarrassment anyway.
1
@CommanderRiker0 also, Peano or Church arithmetic is also "basic maths". Will you ever use them in practice? De Brujin indices are basic maths. Will you use them in practice? So why do you keep babbling your bs about regular expressions being "basic maths", as if it is somehow a justification for a practical application?
1
@CommanderRiker0 if you did, youtube apparently deleted it, I cannot see any messages mentioning removing database entries.
1
@TheRealXartaX "more advanced", as in sitting at the lowest tier of the Chomsky hierarchy. Slow clap. Code monkeys are so confident in their puny understanding!
1
@CommanderRiker0 you don't know much of the modern PLT, do you? Regular languages are the most primitive and the most useless grammars. We have far better tools.
1
@CommanderRiker0 so, being three levels above on the Chomsky hierarchy is now "syntax details"? Go back to school.
1
@CommanderRiker0 do you understand the Chomsky hierarchy? Regular languages are the lowest tier. Yet, people try to do all kinds of weird gymnastics to parse context-free languages using regular grammars, for no reason at all besides mere familiarity with the regular languages and lack of understanding of more complex grammars. While in fact you need a proper context-free grammar, or, even better, just a Turing-complete parser. There is nothing wrong with the mathematics of the regular languages. The problem is the practical applicability of such - they're very much useless. Leave regular languages where they belong - as a mathematical curiosity. Use PEGs or GLRs to parse real-world complex context-free or context-sensitive grammars.
1
@CommanderRiker0 again... Regular expressions can only match regular languages. And regular grammars are not interesting, not useful in practice. You cannot recognise if a given string is, say, a valid JSON, using a regular expressions - because JSON is a context-free grammar, not a regular grammar. Looks like you did not read your formal languages textbook past the chapters describing regular languages. Try to re-visit your understanding of grammars, understand what Chomsky hierarchy is. It's all still mathematics, I'm not talking about any "implementation details" whatsoever.
1
@CommanderRiker0 lol, you have no mathematical background whatsoever if you stopped in your development on puny little primitive regular grammars and failed to comprehend the formalism of context-free and context-sensitive grammars. Again. Regular languages are not useful, because they do not exist in real world. Uneducated dimwits try to shoehorn regular expressions where they do not belong, try to parse context-free languages with regular grammars, and end up producing horrible hacks. You do not understand formal languages. You do not understand the mathematics behind the language theory. Stop embarrassing yourself.
1
@CommanderRiker0 to clarify: every single time someone is using a regexp in programming, they are doing it wrong and should have used something else (like PEG) instead. There is no single practical use case where regexps are justified. Not a single one.
1
@CommanderRiker0 is not it what I told you? Regular expressions are a mathematical curiosity which should have stayed in CS textbooks. They have no place in practice. Disagree? Name a single use case where you think the use of regular expressions is justified. I'll show you how wrong you are.
1
@CommanderRiker0 so, I guess you chickened and won't even try to name a single problem that in your mind should be solved with regular expressions. As expected.
1
@CommanderRiker0 you won't get away so easily. Name a real world problem which can be reduced to a regular language. Almost all real problems are at least context-free.
1
@CommanderRiker0 so, you chickened out, again. You won't be able to name a real-world problem that should be reduced to regular languages.
1
@pirateFinn I demanded a single real world example, where matching regular languages is a solution. Not a single one was named, for a trivial reason - they do not exist. And, no, regexp is never the simplest solution either. PEG is very much a superset of regular expressions, but much less obtuse. For every single case where you'd use a regexp you should have used PEG instead.
1