Another thing that's not immediately obvious is the longer your search string is in grep, the faster it will find your results.

Can you explain why that's the case?

I think it's because there are fewer potential substrings to check for matches, since most of the characters you add to a regex to make it longer also add to the minimum length of the expressions that it can find

String search algorithms can cleverly skip forward when they don't find a match. They can skip forward more for longer "needle" strings.

That said grep is pretty fast period, so probably doesn't make a huge difference in practice, especially if you're IO-bound, which is common.

The caveat being if you're Unicode aware then many of the old skipahead strategies don't work as well and have to be rolled back or disabled.

That's not true. They work just fine. Typically, substring search algorithms are implemented at the encoding level, e.g., on UTF-8 directly. If you just treat that as an alphabet of size 256, then algorithms like Boyer-Moore work out of the box.

But the skip-ahead stuff isn't the most important thing nowadays. The key is staying in the fast vectorized skip loop as long as possible.

I noticed severe slowdowns when passing in the /u flag on my regexes, even with big fixed ASCII strings in the middle of the patterns. They were taking 10 times as long to complete.

That doesn't imply that things like Boyer-Moore suddenly stop being effective. Without more details (which regex engine? what regex? what corpus? which programming language?) it's impossible to state the cause, but it could be as simple as the regex engine not being smart enough to use a literal searcher in that case.

Since you don't want to toot your own horn, and you saved me many hours of not waiting for searches, I'll link to ripgrep here

https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep

Related to this, it is generally a very good idea to be strict when naming functions, parameters, variables, etc. so that each concept has exactly one name throughout the codebase.

Also, check your spelling. It's a pain when items don't show up in search because of spelling issues.

I've seen function names misspelled, and then every invocation just doubling down on that misspelling.

I encountered a similar problem in a c++ codebase and the debugging logs it produced. There was an error which was being reported in the logs as "weak ptr expired" or somethings like that. I grepped for it the whole source code (a gigantic project). No results. Going back and forth several times. Feeling stupid beyond imagination. Then I copy-pasted what was actually printed in the logs into my grep query (previously I was typing it in manually). It quickly found a match. Turns out someone wrote "weak ptr" as "week ptr". Everyone in the team had a good laugh.

And it turns out the pointer expired on sunday morning, except in some regions where it expired on some other day.

But how do you effectively orhanize/enforce this for a code base of several million LOC where geographically distributed teams are working on different ends of the system all the time?

The amount of cross team coordination is staggering.

Fail verification in CI if the change doesn’t pass your checks. You can check anything, such as whether it has a duplicate name already in the codebase.

I would be interested to know, which CI tool can check "that each concept has exactly one name throughout the codebase."

I thought code reviews are the only way and then you need to have every Dev aligned and on the same page on this topic... Which never happens. :/

It wouldn’t be something provided by the CI tool, you’d have to write the test yourself. At the end of the day it’s just another test, albeit a more complex one than a standard unit test.

Documentation, I think.

Also, please think twice before using OO classes as a license to give all your methods useless names like "get", "add", "open", etc.!

I find that line wrapping frequently prevents me from getting complete coverage though. So it works for some cases, not for others.

But I do love auto-formatters. (I'm doing web dev at the moment, so Prettier.) It is freeing to not worry about spacing, line breaks, parens, etc.

All I have to do is give the computer a valid AST and it does The Right Thing.

Isn't this what the /s flag is for in your regex? Assuming you are also using /x of course.

Sort of. But there's indentation, so I need repetition.

And if I'm doing whitespace repetition, there's no great advantage in an autoformatter.

You do have to be more liberal with '\s*' or '\s+' instead of just ' ' in your patterns, that is true.

> the stricter your language’s formatting is, the easier it will be to grep source code

Well that makes sense, the less reliable your input text, the more complex the regexp.