Hacker News Reader

Comment by steveklabnik | Hacker News Reader

As the article mentions, usually PCREs are just 'fast enough.' Not that an anecdote is better than actual data, but I prefer to use regular expressions wherever possible, and I've never had matching time be an issue. It's not as if people are clamoring for better matching times. Supporting two different matching engines so that a fairly trivial speed increase can be had seems silly.

View on HN

But it's not a trivial speed increase -- for some cases PCREs are O(2^n) where Thomson's NFA is at worst O(n^2). The Thomson NFA quickly gets to be millions of times faster

Thomson's algorithm would let you could use regular expressions for cases where you would otherwise have never tried.

> The Thomson NFA quickly gets to be millions of times faster

The O(2^n) worst case only comes from highly ambiguous patterns which are better written in other ways. So this isn't really accurate in practice.

Yes, a 1u to .1u increase is 10x, but it's still trivial. In most cases, everything else that you're doing is much slower than the match. Yes, in a degenerate case, the PCRE performs abysmally, but seriously, are you ever going to use "a?a?a?aaa"? I'd like to see some numbers on the average, not the absolute worst case.

Perl 5.10 and up has a pluggable regex engine interface.

Nice, thanks for pointing this out. That's pretty sweet.

I haven't paid attention to Perl in a while... Perl is kinda like that cute girl that you dated in high school, then had an amicable breakup with when you went off to college. You're always glad to see that she's doing well, but you're off on new things by now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com