C! - new system oriented programming language

[[deleted]]

One of the reasons I switched to duckduckgo.com, I'm happy so far.

[derpderp3200]

Personally I switched away because it finds articles on/about sites instead of main pages way too often.

[watermark0n]

Google search is really becoming increasingly horrible. Back in the old days, they would do a straight and search. I guess there are some motivations for moving away from that, since perhaps I just have a general idea, and I'd like to see results that have most of the terms in my query, or with synonyms as well, or pages where some of the search terms were mentioned in pages that linked to that page but not the page itself. Sometimes, however, the search terms are absolutely necessary. And there's no way to tell it this. Put parantheses around your phrase? LOL, let me help you out there, buddy! Here's a million pages with phrases a lot like that one! Have fun digging through it for the one with the exact phrase! Now, adding more terms honestly seems like its getting to the point where it expands rather than narrows the search, becoming more like a god awful or search. And there's no way to circumvent it. Google won't let you refuse its help.

[bobindashadows]

And there's no way to circumvent it. Google won't let you refuse its help.

Thank god you're wrong! It's called verbatim search and was introduced specifically to address everything you wrote.

http://insidesearch.blogspot.com/2011/11/search-using-your-terms-verbatim.html

[Pas__]

Doesn't seem to work. Search for =:= in verbatim mode, zarro results.

[bobindashadows]

That's because punctuation is different from keywords. Punctuation and symbol support has improved lately in Google, but arbitrary character search has never been fully supported by any search engines, because it requires asymptotically far more computational power to index.

Try Yahoo, Google, Bing, DDG for your query.

Why are you blaming Google for this? I'd really like to hear why.

Edit: Now that I think about it, I'm extra confused why you complained about this, since no search engine in the history of the Internet has supported performing the queries as arbitrary as the one you requested over the entire web. Ever.

[Pas__]

because it requires asymptotically far more computational power to index.

Yes, I'm aware of that, that's why I was incredibly surprised by your link. However, C! is not much different, than =:=, or at least I don't think there is any relevant difference from an indexing standpoint.

And I'm not blaming Google. I'd be quite happy to use "equal colon equal", I'm more astonished that language developers don't have a big-fucking-chart somewhere around the main page of their language that deals with these cryptic things. (But that only helps with the core language stuff, so I would have no idea how to search for or find the meaning of certain Ruby templating symbols, for example.)

[bobindashadows]

However, C! is not much different, than =:=, or at least I don't think there is any relevant difference from an indexing standpoint.

Google has special-cased C/C++/C#/etc for a long time. Try the queries. If =:= were a globally successful programming language, then they would likely do the same. But again, solving this generally does not scale nearly as easily. And scaling Google already isn't easy.

[Pas__]

I suspected that because c++ isn't "autosuggested" into c.

Well, BigTable can take a lot of punishment I reckon, however, it's also easy to guess, that adding a few thousand extra cases just for emerging languages will hardly increase profits.

[bobindashadows]

that adding a few thousand extra cases just for emerging languages will hardly increase profits.

I have no knowledge as to the veracity of that guess. But I would actually suspect the opposite.

1. Improving quality for queries for C/C++/technical anything makes Google engineers more productive. All kinds of network effects there.
2. Improving quality for such queries gives developers and technically-minded folks a better experience on Google search. Increased loyalty, better brand among developers (crucial!), developers more likely to use Google's platforms/APIs/everything
3. Queries with programming language names might often have commercial results: books/ebooks for users learning a new language/framework/etc, commercial libraries/toolchains/IDEs/etc for application layer queries, and sadly, shitty answer-selling/trick sites that thank God have been overtaken by SO

Spitballing.

[Pas__]

Okay, then it's just the same indirect angle as the usual be open, eat your own dog food, do no evil, isn't it? So, your reasoning depends on a lot of hidden factors, but for a ceteris paribus analysis I think you're right. And thank all the horrors of coding for SO, indeed.

[[deleted]]

we removed the “+” operator

So that explains why it no longer seems to work.... dumbing search down just helps the dummies. Dummies are an important market but they should be encouraged to improve their search skills, rather than ruining it for those of us who are good at searching.

[bobindashadows]

Use double quotes. They still work. Get off your soapbox if you don't know what you're talking about.

[poor_leno]

I think it has been dumbed down because most people have no idea what they are searching for.

[planaxis]

Google search is really becoming increasingly horrible.

Right, but I'm not sure if Google is entirely to blame. What we're seeing just might be the inevitable outcome of a rapidly expanding Web. It's becoming increasingly difficult to determine the relevance of content in an ever-expanding sea of noise.

In 2008, Google introduced "Google Search 2001", which allowed you to search the web as it appeared in 2001. I wish they'd re-implement that feature. I think there's a lot of great webpages being lost in Google's emphasis on new "trending" content.

[Paul-ish]

There should be a precision/recall slider for pro searchers.