dow.ngra.de

But if you read the posts I'm pointing to it's clear they had to modify it a lot to absorb the changes.

The problem is that regexp is an inherently bad way to parse XML, which is not a regular language. Therefore you can almost guarantee that every small change (and there are always changes) will cost a lot. Whereas with a standard parser it would cost nothing to begin with.

Well that depends on context. For mission critical parts of the system, such as lets say transaction management, bank account services, of course you got to use all possible best practices, however, for XML parsing, I fail to see business benefits, unless of course XML schema upon which XML parsing is based changed very regularly, which would requires modifications to that unfortunate in technical sense, but good in business way of doing things.

It's always juggling short-term benefits versus long-term benefits. Some of the choices are just widely known to be bad in the long term, because so many have run into them. As an owner I need to avoid such decisions unless I know that long-term isn't relevant (e.g. I'm selling the company off in half a year).

Let me get this straight: your company has working solution that uses suboptimal technical software stack. It works 99% of cases and does not lead to lost/corrupted state.
Now you offer same solution, in business sense, that uses perfect techology stack, and it costs X amount of money (time=money) to complete.

You should ask yourself what would you do if that company was entirely yours.

Obvious troll is obvious

Thanks God wasn't my company, check out the links. Just quoting.

You're telling me that the company you're working for is using RegEx to extract data from XML? They're not even using XPath or something more logical?

Isn't it time you quit your job and moved on?

Best Regards,
Richard L. Burton III