The Stackoverflow Necromancer

Content 4411 Locked. There are disputes about this answer's content being resolved at this time. It is not currently accepting new interactions. V You can't parse XHTML 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. Rege 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. Regx-based HTML parsers are the cancer that is killing StackOverflow it is too late it is too late we cannot be saved the transgression 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 8rrupt 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 will devour your HTML parser, application and existence for all time like Visual Basic only worse he comes he comes do not fight he comes, his unholy radianc destroying all enlightenment, HTML tags leaking from your eyes like liquid pain, the song of rgular expression parsing-will extinquish the voices of mortal man from the sphere I can see it can you see. if it is beautiful the final snuffing of the lies of Man ALL IS LOST ALL IS LOST the pony he comes he comes he comes the ichor permeates all MY FACE MY FACE h god no NO NOOOO NO stop the an"des are not reaT zALGO IS TONY THE PONY HE COMES Have you tried using an XML parser instead? Moderator's Note This post is locked to prevent inappropriate edits to its content. The post looks exactly as it is supposed to look - there are no problems with its content. Please do not flag it for our attention. ProdrammerH

Content I heard he can code without stack overflow

Prison scene: two inmates chatting. The smaller one confesses, "I wrote a regex without Googling." The muscular inmate's reaction? Pure shock: "DUDE. WTF?!" Writing regex from memory is basically the developer equivalent of claiming you can disarm a nuclear bomb blindfolded. Even senior devs with 20 years of experience still copy-paste that email validation pattern. The confidence required to manually craft those cryptic `/^[a-zA-Z0-9]+$/` monstrosities without Stack Overflow backup? Absolutely terrifying.

Content I'm going to write a recursive function With a base case, right? I'm going to write a recursive function With a base case, right?

Content Me saying programming is fun and how much love to deal with challenges algorithmically Also me at 3am:

Left side: Microsoft Community with their 500-word essay on how to get a string length in C#, complete with personal introduction, life story, and excessive technical explanation. Right side: Stack Overflow with the chad-like answer of just "str.Length" - because real programmers don't need your life story, they need the damn property name. The duality of programming help in its purest form. One treats you like you've never seen a computer before; the other assumes you just need the one critical piece of syntax to continue your coding rampage.