Why are String Formatted Queries Considered So Magical?

[Jean-Michel Pichavant]

Stephen Hansen wrote:
> On 6/30/10 11:58 PM, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-06-30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:14:38 +0000, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2010-06-29, Stephen Hansen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There's nothing silly about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is an exaggeration though: but it does represent a good thing to
>>>>> keep in mind.
>>>>
>>>> Not an exaggeration: it's an absolute. It literally says that any time
>>>> you try to solve a problem with a regex, (A) it won't solve the 
>>>> problem
>>>> and (B) it will in itself become a problem.  And it doesn't tell you
>>>> why: you're supposed to accept or reject this without thinking.
>>>
>>> It's a *two sentence* summary, not a reasoned and nuanced essay on the
>>> pros and cons for REs.
>>
>> Well, perhaps you cannot say anything useful about REs in general in
>> two sentences, and should use either more words, or not say anything
>> at all.
>>
>> The way it was used in the quoted text above is one example of what I
>> mean. (Unless other details have been trimmed -- I can't check right
>> now.) If he meant to say "REs aren't really a good solution for this
>> kind of problem, even though they look tempting", then he should have
>> said that.
>
> The way it is used above (Even with more stripping) is exactly where 
> it is legitimate.
>
> Regular expressions are a powerful tool.
>
> The use of a powerful tool when a simple tool is available that 
> achieves the same end is inappropriate, because power *always* has a 
> cost.
>
> The entire point of the quote is that when you look at a problem, you 
> should *begin* from the position that a complex, powerful tool is not 
> what you need to solve it.
>
> You should always begin from a position that a simple tool will 
> suffice to do what you need.
>
> The quote does not deny the power of regular expressions; it 
> challenges widely held assumption and belief that comes from 
> *somewhere* that they are the best way to approach any problem that is 
> text related.
>
> Does it come off as negative towards regular expressions? Certainly. 
> But not because of any fault of re's on their own, but because there 
> is this widespread perception that they are the swiss army knife that 
> can solve any problem by just flicking out the right little blade.
>
> Its about redefining perception.
>
> Regular expressions are not the go-to solution for anything to do with 
> text. Regular expressions are the tool you reach for when nothing else 
> will work.
>
> Its not your first step; its your last (or, at least, one that happens 
> way later then most people come around expecting it to be).
>

Guys, this dogmatic discussion already took place in this list. Why 
start again ?
Re is part of the python standard library, for some purpose I guess.

JM