5 ms·

I'm very disappointed to see google code search go. It was very useful (for me at least, don't read this as a comment on the whole committee / process) in fini

I'm very disappointed to see google code search go. It was very useful (for me at least, don't read this as a comment on the whole committee / process) in finishing the new C++ standard, and answering the question "Well, did anyone ever really write code like X?" (the answer was usually yes). Buzz makes a lot of sense, although I imagine some users will be disappointed it couldn't be more 'cleanly' imported into google+.

icefox 15y ago
Same here on google code. I have used it on multiple occasions to find out how users are using a class or API to get a feel for what API was actually used for. Not to mention when learning a new API having the ability to see real world usage was always helpful. Not to mention the ease of finding apps that had security issues in codebases after it was found. Anyone know of a replacement for this?
- mapleoin 15y ago
  Well github's code search is a pretty good replacement, although it's limited to github.
  - geraldalewis 15y ago
    GitHub's code search lacks regular expressions, which makes it far less useful than Google Code Search.
perlgeek 15y ago
I also found the code search very useful, and usually used it to answer a similar question: does anybody use a Perl feature that is about to change (due to a bug fix, for example) or for which changes were proposed. I didn't use it all that often, but when I did, I was very grateful for having it.
zackb 15y ago
Did they give a reason for shutting down code search? I didn't see it but think it deserves some kind of explanation of the decision.
- anon1385 15y ago
  It costs money. The kind of people who use it probably have adblock installed. It's not surprising that they would cancel it, they are a company driven by profit after all. I don't think there is really much to explain. Maybe once it had utility as a way to earn good will among developers, but presumably they don't care too much about that these days, given how little competition and how much brand recognition they have. (Is Steve Yegge is still wondering about that 'arrogance' thing?). Every time you perform a normal Google search be thankful for all the people who browse the internet without adblock: they are subsidising you.
  - jsnell 15y ago
    It might not be simply a matter of money, there are other limited resources. For example there could be trouble staffing the project due to nobody wanting to work on it. Or be unwilling to staff it since they feel that anyone working on it could make a bigger impact elsewhere. (And before anyone starts nitpicking that either of those issues could be solved by just throwing more money at it, money and people aren't actually infinitely fungible).
    - uriel 15y ago
      Interesting note: As far as I know Code Search was built mostly by Russ Cox, he is now one of the main developers of the Go language.
  - dxbydt 15y ago
    >>It costs money. Then slap a Gogle Payments icon on the page and charge a dime per click. Or a nickel. They can make a pretty penny, no pun intended :)
    - 15y ago
oscarleung 15y ago
Same here with code search. Why write code that already exists? Code Search helped me find exactly what I needed for a few open-source projects I worked on. Google Buzz was dead before it launched.
joeyespo 15y ago
Too bad Google can't do the opposite of acquiring a company for things like this. Google Code was incredibly useful, it'll be sad to see it go.
- jessriedel 15y ago
  Corporate spin-offs are very possible and are done frequently. The problem here is that Google Code Search wasn't independently profitable, so it wouldn't make sense to sustain it as an independent company. (I presume it was created to build goodwill for Google as a whole among coders.) As to whether any of the related assets are valuable to, say, another company who thinks they can make code search profitable, I don't know. But if Google can sell those assets to such a company, it will.
  - rodh257 15y ago
    I'd guess that the main issue is that it's probably heavily coupled to the rest of Google's services. Their index, web crawler and general infrastructure would be vital to this product. If Google were to spin it off it would be useless without all these things.

icefox 15y ago

Same here on google code. I have used it on multiple occasions to find out how users are using a class or API to get a feel for what API was actually used for. Not to mention when learning a new API having the ability to see real world usage was always helpful. Not to mention the ease of finding apps that had security issues in codebases after it was found. Anyone know of a replacement for this?

mapleoin 15y ago
Well github's code search is a pretty good replacement, although it's limited to github.
- geraldalewis 15y ago
  GitHub's code search lacks regular expressions, which makes it far less useful than Google Code Search.

perlgeek 15y ago

I also found the code search very useful, and usually used it to answer a similar question: does anybody use a Perl feature that is about to change (due to a bug fix, for example) or for which changes were proposed. I didn't use it all that often, but when I did, I was very grateful for having it.

zackb 15y ago

Did they give a reason for shutting down code search? I didn't see it but think it deserves some kind of explanation of the decision.

anon1385 15y ago
It costs money. The kind of people who use it probably have adblock installed. It's not surprising that they would cancel it, they are a company driven by profit after all. I don't think there is really much to explain. Maybe once it had utility as a way to earn good will among developers, but presumably they don't care too much about that these days, given how little competition and how much brand recognition they have. (Is Steve Yegge is still wondering about that 'arrogance' thing?). Every time you perform a normal Google search be thankful for all the people who browse the internet without adblock: they are subsidising you.
- jsnell 15y ago
  It might not be simply a matter of money, there are other limited resources. For example there could be trouble staffing the project due to nobody wanting to work on it. Or be unwilling to staff it since they feel that anyone working on it could make a bigger impact elsewhere. (And before anyone starts nitpicking that either of those issues could be solved by just throwing more money at it, money and people aren't actually infinitely fungible).
  - uriel 15y ago
    Interesting note: As far as I know Code Search was built mostly by Russ Cox, he is now one of the main developers of the Go language.
- dxbydt 15y ago
  >>It costs money. Then slap a Gogle Payments icon on the page and charge a dime per click. Or a nickel. They can make a pretty penny, no pun intended :)
  - 15y ago

oscarleung 15y ago

Same here with code search. Why write code that already exists? Code Search helped me find exactly what I needed for a few open-source projects I worked on. Google Buzz was dead before it launched.

joeyespo 15y ago

Too bad Google can't do the opposite of acquiring a company for things like this. Google Code was incredibly useful, it'll be sad to see it go.

jessriedel 15y ago
Corporate spin-offs are very possible and are done frequently. The problem here is that Google Code Search wasn't independently profitable, so it wouldn't make sense to sustain it as an independent company. (I presume it was created to build goodwill for Google as a whole among coders.) As to whether any of the related assets are valuable to, say, another company who thinks they can make code search profitable, I don't know. But if Google can sell those assets to such a company, it will.
- rodh257 15y ago
  I'd guess that the main issue is that it's probably heavily coupled to the rest of Google's services. Their index, web crawler and general infrastructure would be vital to this product. If Google were to spin it off it would be useless without all these things.