That's a patronizing comment. Often the very education may a stumbling block in the process of learning. Most users of regexps or any other device do not need to read a thick theory book on it. Cobbling together expressions from online tutorials is a perfectly good way to learn effectively. Admittedly, it is not the best way to write production code, but there are often economic considerations that override the expert's desire for perfect design and implementation.
"Often the very education may a stumbling block in the process of learning."
People don't want to learn because it's hard?
"Most users of regexps or any other device do not need to read a thick theory book on it."
Which is why they should at the very least read Friedl.
"Cobbling together expressions from online tutorials is a perfectly good way to learn effectively."
No it's not, otherwise we wouldn't have so many bad regexes and people asking silly questions about them, would we?
"Admittedly, it is not the best way to write production code, but there are often economic considerations that override the expert's desire for perfect design and implementation."
Nobody's talking about 'perfect design and implementation', just 'not be a moron' level. Because car analogies are everbody's favorite, let me use one here: no-one is saying that one should have a Formula 1 licence before driving (using regular expressions); just to have more than 20% vision in both eyes and not to drive after drinking 5 beers while texting your wife that you're on your way. Which is the car-driving equivalent of the majority of regex uses in the wild.
There is truth in that, but I meant to address your comment about other people's lack of education. Education (certificate granted by teaching authority), how good soever it may be, is not necessary to have knowledge or skill. Similarly, reading Friedl how good soever his work is, is not necessary to learn or use regular expressions.
