Re: Google definitely biased…
On Wednesday, 13 August 2014 at 04:08:25 UTC, Ola Fosheim Gr wrote: On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 at 11:09:37 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: I can think of very few successful programming languages in the market without corporate backing. Got popular without corporate backing: algol, basic, bcpl, haskell, lisp, php, python, prolog... Algol - Development was paid by Elliott Brothers, Ltd. Basic - Corporate backing from all companies producing home computers in the early 80's. Microsoft was started by writing Basic interpreters. Lisp - Development was paid by Xerox PARC, Lisp Machines, Symbiotics, Texas Instruments, ... BCPL - Early development paid by MIT, further uses in Amiga OS (Commodore), Xerox PARC, ... Haskell - Many researchers are on Microsoft Research payroll Python - Zope, Google, Dropbox and all the companies paying the core developers salaries PHP - Zend and all the ISP that only allow PHP as only scripting language on their servers Prolog - I like it a lot, but popular?!? Anyway DEC, Turbo Prolog, LPA Prolog
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Wednesday, 13 August 2014 at 07:12:26 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: ... Almost anything that is getting popular will get commercial backing if it is commercially viable, but that does not define adoption. Would you claim that perl was done by Unisys?
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Wednesday, 13 August 2014 at 07:40:28 UTC, Ola Fosheim Gr wrote: On Wednesday, 13 August 2014 at 07:12:26 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: ... Almost anything that is getting popular will get commercial backing if it is commercially viable, but that does not define adoption. Sure, but it funds the language designers life requirements as well as building confidence in customers. That alone is not enough, of course. Would you claim that perl was done by Unisys? Maybe it would not have became famous if it wasn't for Unisys integration. -- Paulo
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 at 09:57:28 UTC, Chris wrote: What happens, if one day Google says that they will abandon Go, cos it didn't bring the desired results? Just like companies tend to abandon languages and frameworks at random. Remember Google translate? Java Swing is to be replaced by JavaFX. Now Objective-C is becoming obsolete. There are loads of examples. People flock to technologies backed by big companies, because they think it's safer to do so. But again and again, companies just drop technologies as they see fit. Open source has been more reliable. Most frameworks still exist (think of all the Linux stuff). Isn't swing open source?
Re: Google definitely biased…
On 08/13/2014 09:12 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote: On Wednesday, 13 August 2014 at 04:08:25 UTC, Ola Fosheim Gr wrote: On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 at 11:09:37 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: I can think of very few successful programming languages in the market without corporate backing. Got popular without corporate backing: algol, basic, bcpl, haskell, lisp, php, python, prolog... Algol - Development was paid by Elliott Brothers, Ltd. Basic - Corporate backing from all companies producing home computers in the early 80's. Microsoft was started by writing Basic interpreters. Lisp - Development was paid by Xerox PARC, Lisp Machines, Symbiotics, Texas Instruments, ... BCPL - Early development paid by MIT, further uses in Amiga OS (Commodore), Xerox PARC, ... Haskell - Many researchers are on Microsoft Research payroll Python - Zope, Google, Dropbox and all the companies paying the core developers salaries PHP - Zend and all the ISP that only allow PHP as only scripting language on their servers Prolog - I like it a lot, but popular?!? Anyway DEC, Turbo Prolog, LPA Prolog D - backed by Facebook .. ok, only a couple of hundred $ :)
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Wednesday, 13 August 2014 at 08:06:46 UTC, Kagamin wrote: On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 at 09:57:28 UTC, Chris wrote: What happens, if one day Google says that they will abandon Go, cos it didn't bring the desired results? Just like companies tend to abandon languages and frameworks at random. Remember Google translate? Java Swing is to be replaced by JavaFX. Now Objective-C is becoming obsolete. There are loads of examples. People flock to technologies backed by big companies, because they think it's safer to do so. But again and again, companies just drop technologies as they see fit. Open source has been more reliable. Most frameworks still exist (think of all the Linux stuff). Isn't swing open source? Only partially. There are some differences between the OpenJDK and Oracle's commercial implementation, due to licensing issues from third party code. Not to mention there are multiple Java vendors anyway. -- Paulo
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Wednesday, 13 August 2014 at 08:15:33 UTC, simendsjo wrote: On 08/13/2014 09:12 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote: On Wednesday, 13 August 2014 at 04:08:25 UTC, Ola Fosheim Gr wrote: On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 at 11:09:37 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: I can think of very few successful programming languages in the market without corporate backing. Got popular without corporate backing: algol, basic, bcpl, haskell, lisp, php, python, prolog... Algol - Development was paid by Elliott Brothers, Ltd. Basic - Corporate backing from all companies producing home computers in the early 80's. Microsoft was started by writing Basic interpreters. Lisp - Development was paid by Xerox PARC, Lisp Machines, Symbiotics, Texas Instruments, ... BCPL - Early development paid by MIT, further uses in Amiga OS (Commodore), Xerox PARC, ... Haskell - Many researchers are on Microsoft Research payroll Python - Zope, Google, Dropbox and all the companies paying the core developers salaries PHP - Zend and all the ISP that only allow PHP as only scripting language on their servers Prolog - I like it a lot, but popular?!? Anyway DEC, Turbo Prolog, LPA Prolog D - backed by Facebook .. ok, only a couple of hundred $ :) I would say D is backed by all companies that allow the core team members to work on the language on their work hours. -- Paulo
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 at 16:43:18 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: If Google dropped Go tomorrow, there would be immediate backing for new management of a fork. Sure, and we would have Go+, GNUGo, FreeGo (discontinued) and whatnot, each having a different philosophy. There would be flame wars on the internet and nobody would know which kind of Go to use. Just like any open language implementation out there. CRuby vs JRuby vs RubyMotion vs ... CPython vs Jython vs ... Clang vs gcc vs msvc vs icc vs aC++ vs xlc vs Or for that matter Dmd vs ldc vs gdc Which is not what I meant. For Python and C etc there is still one reference implementation of the language, regardless of compilers or additional frameworks. What I meant were different _implementations_ of the language with different features and libraries, like Phobos and Tango (back in the day). That might happen to Go, if Google let it, well, go.
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Wednesday, 13 August 2014 at 09:04:18 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: On Wednesday, 13 August 2014 at 08:15:33 UTC, simendsjo wrote: On 08/13/2014 09:12 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote: On Wednesday, 13 August 2014 at 04:08:25 UTC, Ola Fosheim Gr wrote: On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 at 11:09:37 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: I can think of very few successful programming languages in the market without corporate backing. Got popular without corporate backing: algol, basic, bcpl, haskell, lisp, php, python, prolog... Algol - Development was paid by Elliott Brothers, Ltd. Basic - Corporate backing from all companies producing home computers in the early 80's. Microsoft was started by writing Basic interpreters. Lisp - Development was paid by Xerox PARC, Lisp Machines, Symbiotics, Texas Instruments, ... BCPL - Early development paid by MIT, further uses in Amiga OS (Commodore), Xerox PARC, ... Haskell - Many researchers are on Microsoft Research payroll Python - Zope, Google, Dropbox and all the companies paying the core developers salaries PHP - Zend and all the ISP that only allow PHP as only scripting language on their servers Prolog - I like it a lot, but popular?!? Anyway DEC, Turbo Prolog, LPA Prolog D - backed by Facebook .. ok, only a couple of hundred $ :) I would say D is backed by all companies that allow the core team members to work on the language on their work hours. -- Paulo I wouldn't call it backed in this case. D is used by the companies just like any other language, which is different from paying core developers of the language salaries or developing a language in house. Bounties are some kind of backing, I agree, because people are paid to fix things in the library / core.
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Wednesday, 13 August 2014 at 10:03:35 UTC, Chris wrote: On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 at 16:43:18 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: If Google dropped Go tomorrow, there would be immediate backing for new management of a fork. Sure, and we would have Go+, GNUGo, FreeGo (discontinued) and whatnot, each having a different philosophy. There would be flame wars on the internet and nobody would know which kind of Go to use. Just like any open language implementation out there. CRuby vs JRuby vs RubyMotion vs ... CPython vs Jython vs ... Clang vs gcc vs msvc vs icc vs aC++ vs xlc vs Or for that matter Dmd vs ldc vs gdc Which is not what I meant. For Python and C etc there is still one reference implementation of the language, regardless of compilers or additional frameworks. What I meant were different _implementations_ of the language with different features and libraries, like Phobos and Tango (back in the day). That might happen to Go, if Google let it, well, go. There isn't such a thing as one reference implementation for C, given the amount of undefined and unspecified behavior in the standard. To the point many C developers mistakenly take their compiler behavior, and extensions, as what to expect from the standard. -- Paulo
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Wednesday, 13 August 2014 at 11:03:41 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: On Wednesday, 13 August 2014 at 10:03:35 UTC, Chris wrote: On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 at 16:43:18 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: If Google dropped Go tomorrow, there would be immediate backing for new management of a fork. Sure, and we would have Go+, GNUGo, FreeGo (discontinued) and whatnot, each having a different philosophy. There would be flame wars on the internet and nobody would know which kind of Go to use. Just like any open language implementation out there. CRuby vs JRuby vs RubyMotion vs ... CPython vs Jython vs ... Clang vs gcc vs msvc vs icc vs aC++ vs xlc vs Or for that matter Dmd vs ldc vs gdc Which is not what I meant. For Python and C etc there is still one reference implementation of the language, regardless of compilers or additional frameworks. What I meant were different _implementations_ of the language with different features and libraries, like Phobos and Tango (back in the day). That might happen to Go, if Google let it, well, go. There isn't such a thing as one reference implementation for C, given the amount of undefined and unspecified behavior in the standard. To the point many C developers mistakenly take their compiler behavior, and extensions, as what to expect from the standard. -- Paulo But you can start to program in standard C99 and be sure that in 99% of all cases it will compile and work. Same goes for Python and PHP etc. Remember Phobos vs. Tango? This must have put a lot of people off back then.
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Wednesday, 13 August 2014 at 12:34:30 UTC, Chris wrote: On Wednesday, 13 August 2014 at 11:03:41 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: On Wednesday, 13 August 2014 at 10:03:35 UTC, Chris wrote: On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 at 16:43:18 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: If Google dropped Go tomorrow, there would be immediate backing for new management of a fork. Sure, and we would have Go+, GNUGo, FreeGo (discontinued) and whatnot, each having a different philosophy. There would be flame wars on the internet and nobody would know which kind of Go to use. Just like any open language implementation out there. CRuby vs JRuby vs RubyMotion vs ... CPython vs Jython vs ... Clang vs gcc vs msvc vs icc vs aC++ vs xlc vs Or for that matter Dmd vs ldc vs gdc Which is not what I meant. For Python and C etc there is still one reference implementation of the language, regardless of compilers or additional frameworks. What I meant were different _implementations_ of the language with different features and libraries, like Phobos and Tango (back in the day). That might happen to Go, if Google let it, well, go. There isn't such a thing as one reference implementation for C, given the amount of undefined and unspecified behavior in the standard. To the point many C developers mistakenly take their compiler behavior, and extensions, as what to expect from the standard. -- Paulo But you can start to program in standard C99 and be sure that in 99% of all cases it will compile and work. Same goes for Python and PHP etc. Remember Phobos vs. Tango? This must have put a lot of people off back then. Yeah, I admit I am trolling a little bit. :) -- Paulo
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 12:34:28 + Chris via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote: But you can start to program in standard C99 and be sure that in 99% of all cases it will compile and work. only if the author reads the standard. does average C programmer knows the standard and all cases that causes UB? i bet not. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Google definitely biased…
On 8/13/14, 2:04 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote: I would say D is backed by all companies that allow the core team members to work on the language on their work hours. on != in. Big difference. -- Andrei
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Monday, 11 August 2014 at 20:31:55 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: Am 11.08.2014 19:40, schrieb ketmar via Digitalmars-d: On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 16:23:19 +0100 Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote: Google definitely try to push Go :-) so you mean that Go can't walk on it's own and needs to be constantly pushed by Google so other people will think that it's alive? heh. Yes, just look to the previous incarnations of Go (Alef, Limbo, Oberon 2). What is actually happening is the Rails, NodeJS hipsters now found a new toy, just because it has the Google stamp on it. -- Paulo Try duckduckgo.com. I typed dlang vs golang. Then do the same in google. The results are worlds apart! What happens, if one day Google says that they will abandon Go, cos it didn't bring the desired results? Just like companies tend to abandon languages and frameworks at random. Remember Google translate? Java Swing is to be replaced by JavaFX. Now Objective-C is becoming obsolete. There are loads of examples. People flock to technologies backed by big companies, because they think it's safer to do so. But again and again, companies just drop technologies as they see fit. Open source has been more reliable. Most frameworks still exist (think of all the Linux stuff).
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 at 09:57:28 UTC, Chris wrote: On Monday, 11 August 2014 at 20:31:55 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: Am 11.08.2014 19:40, schrieb ketmar via Digitalmars-d: On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 16:23:19 +0100 Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote: Google definitely try to push Go :-) so you mean that Go can't walk on it's own and needs to be constantly pushed by Google so other people will think that it's alive? heh. Yes, just look to the previous incarnations of Go (Alef, Limbo, Oberon 2). What is actually happening is the Rails, NodeJS hipsters now found a new toy, just because it has the Google stamp on it. -- Paulo Try duckduckgo.com. I typed dlang vs golang. Then do the same in google. The results are worlds apart! What happens, if one day Google says that they will abandon Go, cos it didn't bring the desired results? Just like companies tend to abandon languages and frameworks at random. Remember Google translate? Java Swing is to be replaced by JavaFX. Now Objective-C is becoming obsolete. There are loads of examples. People flock to technologies backed by big companies, because they think it's safer to do so. But again and again, companies just drop technologies as they see fit. Open source has been more reliable. Most frameworks still exist (think of all the Linux stuff). I can think of very few successful programming languages in the market without corporate backing. Even standard ECMA/ANSI/ISO ones, where at a given point in time, corporate languages. -- Paulo
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 at 11:09:37 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 at 09:57:28 UTC, Chris wrote: On Monday, 11 August 2014 at 20:31:55 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: Am 11.08.2014 19:40, schrieb ketmar via Digitalmars-d: On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 16:23:19 +0100 Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote: Google definitely try to push Go :-) so you mean that Go can't walk on it's own and needs to be constantly pushed by Google so other people will think that it's alive? heh. Yes, just look to the previous incarnations of Go (Alef, Limbo, Oberon 2). What is actually happening is the Rails, NodeJS hipsters now found a new toy, just because it has the Google stamp on it. -- Paulo Try duckduckgo.com. I typed dlang vs golang. Then do the same in google. The results are worlds apart! What happens, if one day Google says that they will abandon Go, cos it didn't bring the desired results? Just like companies tend to abandon languages and frameworks at random. Remember Google translate? Java Swing is to be replaced by JavaFX. Now Objective-C is becoming obsolete. There are loads of examples. People flock to technologies backed by big companies, because they think it's safer to do so. But again and again, companies just drop technologies as they see fit. Open source has been more reliable. Most frameworks still exist (think of all the Linux stuff). I can think of very few successful programming languages in the market without corporate backing. Even standard ECMA/ANSI/ISO ones, where at a given point in time, corporate languages. -- Paulo But they didn't remain proprietary languages, they were made publicly available and standardized, kind of open sourced, to ensure they'd survive. The whole world could use them regardless of the OS or hardware in question. I doubt that Swift for example will be successful on a larger scale, as long as it's bound to Apple devices only. My point was that it's a common misconception to think that corporate backing (or ownership) will guarantee a) a _good_ language and b) continuity. Apple made Objective-C popular, but is now dropping it. There ain't no guarantee, even if a language is backed by a big corporation.
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 09:57 +, Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote: […] Try duckduckgo.com. I typed dlang vs golang. Then do the same in google. The results are worlds apart! Indeed, but the Duck Duck Go indexing is not yet anywhere near as good as Google, though I use it a lot. What happens, if one day Google says that they will abandon Go, cos it didn't bring the desired results? Just like companies tend to abandon languages and frameworks at random. Remember Google translate? Java Swing is to be replaced by JavaFX. Now Objective-C is becoming obsolete. There are loads of examples. People flock to technologies backed by big companies, because they think it's safer to do so. But again and again, companies just drop technologies as they see fit. Open source has been more reliable. Most frameworks still exist (think of all the Linux stuff). I think this is a somewhat unfair characterization of the history and the corporate motivations. Java Swing needed to go. JavaFX is a reasonable technology to replace it. Disclaimer, I am involved with GroovyFX. Objective-C is not becoming obsolete, it is just being superceded in the Apple walled garden. If Google dropped Go tomorrow, there would be immediate backing for new management of a fork. It is true that Go is currently, effectively, a proprietary language, but the repository is open, it is just that the committers to the mainline are all Google employees. -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 at 13:12:46 UTC, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 09:57 +, Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote: […] Try duckduckgo.com. I typed dlang vs golang. Then do the same in google. The results are worlds apart! Indeed, but the Duck Duck Go indexing is not yet anywhere near as good as Google, though I use it a lot. What happens, if one day Google says that they will abandon Go, cos it didn't bring the desired results? Just like companies tend to abandon languages and frameworks at random. Remember Google translate? Java Swing is to be replaced by JavaFX. Now Objective-C is becoming obsolete. There are loads of examples. People flock to technologies backed by big companies, because they think it's safer to do so. But again and again, companies just drop technologies as they see fit. Open source has been more reliable. Most frameworks still exist (think of all the Linux stuff). I think this is a somewhat unfair characterization of the history and the corporate motivations. Corporate motivations: 1. money, money, money 2. dependent customers 3. control Java Swing needed to go. JavaFX is a reasonable technology to replace it. Disclaimer, I am involved with GroovyFX. Objective-C is not becoming obsolete, it is just being superceded in the Apple walled garden. superseded is just a nice euphemism for obsolete. There is not much Objective-C outside the Apple garden. Twas OS X and iOS that made it popular. A lot of work and effort on the side of app developers can now be binned, sooner or later. Now they have to learn a new language. Funnily enough, when people reject D they say why should I learn a new language, I already know C# / C++. Now they have to by decree from Apple, and people are fine with it, because it's being sold as _the ultimate new and modern language_. That's why I don't want to be locked in by any proprietary software any more. If Google dropped Go tomorrow, there would be immediate backing for new management of a fork. Sure, and we would have Go+, GNUGo, FreeGo (discontinued) and whatnot, each having a different philosophy. There would be flame wars on the internet and nobody would know which kind of Go to use. It is true that Go is currently, effectively, a proprietary language, but the repository is open, it is just that the committers to the mainline are all Google employees.
Re: Google definitely biased…
If Google dropped Go tomorrow, there would be immediate backing for new management of a fork. Sure, and we would have Go+, GNUGo, FreeGo (discontinued) and whatnot, each having a different philosophy. There would be flame wars on the internet and nobody would know which kind of Go to use. Just like any open language implementation out there. CRuby vs JRuby vs RubyMotion vs ... CPython vs Jython vs ... Clang vs gcc vs msvc vs icc vs aC++ vs xlc vs Or for that matter Dmd vs ldc vs gdc
Re: Google definitely biased…
Am Mon, 11 Aug 2014 16:23:19 +0100 schrieb Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com: … so what's new? I was trying to search for web-based material on D ranges and Go slices to see if they are basically the same thing. As soon as golang is a query term, no other language makes it onto the front page of the query results, cf. dlang range slice golang Google definitely try to push Go :-) I think the results are bad in part due to Google using 'dlang' synonymously with 'd'. So you get dozens of false positives which flood the first page of search results. %d you'd I'd Use the literal search instead, which disables synonyms: https://www.google.de/search?tbs=li%3A1q=dlang+golang+range+OR+ranges+OR+slice+OR+slices I think these results look very fair. -- Marco signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:05:26 +0200 Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote: Use the literal search instead, which disables synonyms: sorry, i somehow missed that line. mea culpa. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:05:26 +0200 Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote: https://www.google.de/search?tbs=li%3A1q=dlang+golang+range+OR+ranges+OR+slice+OR+slices there is no need to specify plural forms, engine is clever enough. besides, many (if not all) sites using D instead of dlang, so quoting dlang and/or using +dlang does not work good. Google-Fu is difficult! ;-) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 at 11:09:37 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: I can think of very few successful programming languages in the market without corporate backing. Got popular without corporate backing: algol, basic, bcpl, haskell, lisp, php, python, prolog... Got popular with corporate backing: cobol, fortran, c, javascript, java, c#, go...
Google definitely biased…
… so what's new? I was trying to search for web-based material on D ranges and Go slices to see if they are basically the same thing. As soon as golang is a query term, no other language makes it onto the front page of the query results, cf. dlang range slice golang Google definitely try to push Go :-) -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Google definitely biased…
https://www.google.com/search?q=dlang%20range%20slice%20golang Did you mean: golang range slice golang Wat!
Re: Google definitely biased…
Am 11.08.2014 17:23, schrieb Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d: … so what's new? I was trying to search for web-based material on D ranges and Go slices to see if they are basically the same thing. As soon as golang is a query term, no other language makes it onto the front page of the query results, cf. dlang range slice golang Google definitely try to push Go :-) I've just heard a few days ago from someone who *always* gets the suggestion to search for golang instead of dlang, so it's not even possible to properly search for dlang results alone.
Re: Google definitely biased…
On 8/11/14, 8:34 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote: Am 11.08.2014 17:23, schrieb Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d: … so what's new? I was trying to search for web-based material on D ranges and Go slices to see if they are basically the same thing. As soon as golang is a query term, no other language makes it onto the front page of the query results, cf. dlang range slice golang Google definitely try to push Go :-) I've just heard a few days ago from someone who *always* gets the suggestion to search for golang instead of dlang, so it's not even possible to properly search for dlang results alone. https://www.google.com/search?q=dlang%20-golanggws_rd=ssl I wouldn't be surprised if there's some manual biasing at work, but I don't think there is. Andrei
Re: Google definitely biased…
On 8/11/14, 8:23 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote: … so what's new? I was trying to search for web-based material on D ranges and Go slices to see if they are basically the same thing. As soon as golang is a query term, no other language makes it onto the front page of the query results, cf. dlang range slice golang Google definitely try to push Go :-) https://www.google.com/search?q=golang%20vs%20dlang%20slicegws_rd=ssl ain't that bad. -- Andrei
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Monday, 11 August 2014 at 15:36:12 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 8/11/14, 8:23 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote: … so what's new? I was trying to search for web-based material on D ranges and Go slices to see if they are basically the same thing. As soon as golang is a query term, no other language makes it onto the front page of the query results, cf. dlang range slice golang Google definitely try to push Go :-) https://www.google.com/search?q=golang%20vs%20dlang%20slicegws_rd=ssl ain't that bad. -- Andrei I see only one dlang link with this search query (better than 0 though!)
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Monday, 11 August 2014 at 15:34:30 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote: Am 11.08.2014 17:23, schrieb Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d: … so what's new? I was trying to search for web-based material on D ranges and Go slices to see if they are basically the same thing. As soon as golang is a query term, no other language makes it onto the front page of the query results, cf. dlang range slice golang Google definitely try to push Go :-) I've just heard a few days ago from someone who *always* gets the suggestion to search for golang instead of dlang, so it's not even possible to properly search for dlang results alone. Same here. It's so annoying.
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Mon, 2014-08-11 at 08:37 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote: […] I wouldn't be surprised if there's some manual biasing at work, but I don't think there is. I don't think we have to consider manual biasing, I think the nature of the algorithm automatically biases Google sources against any other. The bias here is I think systemic for reasons completely separate to D and Go. It's really annoying though. The question remains though — for a separate thread I think — are D's ranges and Go's slices same/similar/analogous/totally different. -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Monday, 11 August 2014 at 15:37:04 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 8/11/14, 8:34 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote: Am 11.08.2014 17:23, schrieb Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d: … so what's new? I was trying to search for web-based material on D ranges and Go slices to see if they are basically the same thing. As soon as golang is a query term, no other language makes it onto the front page of the query results, cf. dlang range slice golang Google definitely try to push Go :-) I've just heard a few days ago from someone who *always* gets the suggestion to search for golang instead of dlang, so it's not even possible to properly search for dlang results alone. https://www.google.com/search?q=dlang%20-golanggws_rd=ssl I wouldn't be surprised if there's some manual biasing at work, but I don't think there is. Andrei Assuming Google trends is also biased, it would seem not: http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=dlang%2C%20golang
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 04:06:35PM +, AsmMan via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Monday, 11 August 2014 at 15:34:30 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote: Am 11.08.2014 17:23, schrieb Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d: … so what's new? I was trying to search for web-based material on D ranges and Go slices to see if they are basically the same thing. As soon as golang is a query term, no other language makes it onto the front page of the query results, cf. dlang range slice golang Google definitely try to push Go :-) I've just heard a few days ago from someone who *always* gets the suggestion to search for golang instead of dlang, so it's not even possible to properly search for dlang results alone. Same here. It's so annoying. Hmm. I wonder if they may have gone a little overboard with search result customization -- if I search for 'dlang' I always get dlang.org at the top of the search results, and it never suggests golang instead. T -- There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.
Re: Google definitely biased…
On 8/11/14, 9:06 AM, AsmMan wrote: On Monday, 11 August 2014 at 15:34:30 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote: Am 11.08.2014 17:23, schrieb Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d: … so what's new? I was trying to search for web-based material on D ranges and Go slices to see if they are basically the same thing. As soon as golang is a query term, no other language makes it onto the front page of the query results, cf. dlang range slice golang Google definitely try to push Go :-) I've just heard a few days ago from someone who *always* gets the suggestion to search for golang instead of dlang, so it's not even possible to properly search for dlang results alone. Same here. It's so annoying. Use the - operator, e.g. dlang -golang Andrei
Re: Google definitely biased…
Shouldn't the website be upper in the rank if it was using ssl? On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote: On 8/11/14, 9:06 AM, AsmMan wrote: On Monday, 11 August 2014 at 15:34:30 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote: Am 11.08.2014 17:23, schrieb Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d: … so what's new? I was trying to search for web-based material on D ranges and Go slices to see if they are basically the same thing. As soon as golang is a query term, no other language makes it onto the front page of the query results, cf. dlang range slice golang Google definitely try to push Go :-) I've just heard a few days ago from someone who *always* gets the suggestion to search for golang instead of dlang, so it's not even possible to properly search for dlang results alone. Same here. It's so annoying. Use the - operator, e.g. dlang -golang Andrei
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 16:23:19 +0100 Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote: Google definitely try to push Go :-) so you mean that Go can't walk on it's own and needs to be constantly pushed by Google so other people will think that it's alive? heh. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Monday, 11 August 2014 at 19:43:26 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 16:23:19 +0100 Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote: Google definitely try to push Go :-) so you mean that Go can't walk on it's own and needs to be constantly pushed by Google so other people will think that it's alive? heh. They did the same thing to push Google+ on YouTube... Forced integration, and what do we have? 300 million users on Google+ who don't have anything in their accounts... probably more. Honestly Go looks like an _interesting_ language, but I already love D and want it over C++.
Re: Google definitely biased…
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 19:57:47 + Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote: Honestly Go looks like an _interesting_ language i'm agree. it just don't fit for me. but I already love D and want it over C++. same for me too. back in D1 times i was not really impressed. my interest starts to grow when there was GDC revival. then i convinced myself to try D for some of my hobby projects and immideately fell in love. and rdmd is a great tool too. but i'm still looking at things people doing in Rust and Go and with 'em success. the more tools we have the more choise we have. yet i don't think that i'll switch away from D in the near future. especially if D will get AST macros feature. ;-) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Google definitely biased…
Am 11.08.2014 19:40, schrieb ketmar via Digitalmars-d: On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 16:23:19 +0100 Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote: Google definitely try to push Go :-) so you mean that Go can't walk on it's own and needs to be constantly pushed by Google so other people will think that it's alive? heh. Yes, just look to the previous incarnations of Go (Alef, Limbo, Oberon 2). What is actually happening is the Rails, NodeJS hipsters now found a new toy, just because it has the Google stamp on it. -- Paulo
