Not Go! [LWN.net]

Not Go!

Posted May 15, 2013 11:27 UTC (Wed) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
In reply to: Not Go! by mirabilos
Parent article: Go language 1.1 released

The point is, the original guys (a) called it by a very generic two-letter English word, (b) don't seem to be maintaining it (the Wikipedia link to the Go! page is dead), so I don't see where the "steamrolling" occurred. And namespace clashes happen a lot. Knuth called his text processing language TeX, Honeywell called theirs TEX at pretty much the same time, I'm not sure who released first but Knuth does say his lowercase "e" is to distinguish his system from Honeywell's -- that sounds about as significant a difference as the difference in Go and Go! -- and "tex" isn't even an English word. Gnuplot has nothing to do with the GNU project. And like Microsoft (Word, Windows), Apple has decided that it can appropriate any English word it likes by prefixing an "i".

to post comments

Not Go!

Posted May 15, 2013 19:31 UTC (Wed) by theophrastus (guest, #80847) [Link] (7 responses)

at least it comes up second in an unqualified google search (hm... wonder why that was likely?), and it's better than searching for matters related to 'R' (statistical package). quick! write the programming language: 'the'. just be sure it's the definite (object oriented functional) article.

Not Go!

Posted May 15, 2013 21:02 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (6 responses)

Actually, R comes up first on my searches. I'm used to get to R project site quite a lot when I accidentally press 'enter' after 'r' when typing a URL.

Not Go!

Posted May 17, 2013 9:46 UTC (Fri) by njwhite (guest, #51848) [Link] (5 responses)

Which is why these "x is hard to search for" complaints are getting more and more difficult to substantiate precisely (at least using Google), as Google is very adept at delivering personalised search results nowadays.

Not Go!

Posted May 17, 2013 13:27 UTC (Fri) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link] (4 responses)

> Google is very adept at delivering personalised search results nowadays.

Yes. Yes, they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble

Not Go!

Posted May 17, 2013 13:38 UTC (Fri) by njwhite (guest, #51848) [Link] (3 responses)

Duckduckgo have a nice simple explanation of why it's an issue too, at http://dontbubble.us/

Not Go!

Posted May 17, 2013 15:39 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link] (2 responses)

I use DuckDuckGo for all my initial search attempts, and I agree that anonymous searching should be something we should all be getting by default, but either the personalisation makes a significant quality difference (as well as the obvious relevance difference) or the preferred search providers of DuckDuckGo - they use Bing quite a bit - are rather awful at offering half-way decent search results that don't push Microsoft-related resources when asked about something else.

Search engines

Posted May 17, 2013 15:57 UTC (Fri) by njwhite (guest, #51848) [Link] (1 responses)

I don't think it's the personalisation that makes the primary difference. My browser discards cookies regularly, and I don't generally sign in to Google, but when I'm having trouble finding something with duckduckgo Google does tend to provide better results. Having said that, it's very rare for DuckDuckGo to not find what I'm looking for. Nowadays I tend to use wikipedia rather than a web search engine to find what I need, though, depending on domain.

Search engines

Posted May 20, 2013 8:16 UTC (Mon) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link]

> Nowadays I tend to use wikipedia rather than a web search engine to find what I need, though, depending on domain.

Yeah, Wikipedia is my default search engine too. But that also means that I have to retrain my fingers for the cases when I don't want to search in Wikipedia to open something else than Google. It's hard :)