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+.
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?
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.
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.
> 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?).
It does cost money, but I kind of doubt this is the reason.
First thing, I assume that Google will continue to have Code Search or something very much like it available internally. The reason is simple: Like many people here said, this kind of search is useful for us programmers. So Google would be silly to not let its people continue to benefit from it. Google is known to have lots of internal tools written to make its developers more productive - this would be just another one.
Second, given that assumption, I wonder how much money it takes to run Code Search publicly. The code is already working, development costs are already paid. How much traffic does it actually receive? I doubt it is that much that it is significant in any way for Google. Google's server infrastructure is very efficient, and the amount of people searching for code isn't that big in absolute terms.
So why would Google be shutting it down? I have no idea. I can throw out a few wild guesses, but don't take them too seriously:
1. Part of a push to limit the amount of Google websites and services - just to keep the number smaller, more coherent, more cohesive.
2. Keeping Code Search an internal tool gives Google another advantage that its developers have that others do not.
2.1. Perhaps Google just finished a major upgrade to Code Search, and decided it wants to keep that internal, and doesn't want to maintain two codebases.
3. Fear of potential legal issues, either
3.1. People suing on the assumption that code appearing in Code Search has been 'scanned' by Google, so Google can't say it never saw that code before, say, in a copyright infringement lawsuit (like the Oracle-Google lawsuit), or
3.2. People using Code Search to find similar pieces of code and using that to sue people. (Both of these legal fears seem ridiculous to me, but lawyers tell their clients to do lots of things that seem ridiculous in order to limit legal liability.)
Again, though, I really have no idea. But I doubt it is money.
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).
As someone who routinely uses Google with AdBlock installed, I second this. For that matter, I would gladly pay Google a monthly fee to have unlimited search, if the "free" Google only had limited search. The fact that Google has chosen to make their money from advertisers instead of users like me is not my fault.
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.
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.
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.
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+.