News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by jsonscripter on Monday August 24, 2009 @12:59PM (#782575)
Gmail search is fast. On outlook, a desktop mail client, it can take up to an hour to search for a simple term, in my experience.
Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by discojesus on Monday August 24, 2009 @01:46PM (#782727)
if I may quote some scripture:

"Gerald Weinberg tells the story of a programmer who was flown to Detroit to help debug a troubled program. The programmer worked with the team who had developed the program and concluded after several days that the situation was hopeless.

On the flight home, he mulled over the situation and realized what the problem was. By the end of the flight, he had an outline for the new code. He tested the code for several days and was about to return to Detroit when he got a telegram saying that the project was canceled because the program was impossible to write. He headed back to Detroit anyway and convinced the executives that the project could be completed.

Then he had to convince the project's original programmers. They listened to his presentation, and when he'd finished, the creator of the old system asked, "And how long does your program take?"

"That varies, but about ten seconds per input."

"Aha! But my program takes only one second per input." The veteran leaned back, satisfied that he'd stumped the upstart. The other programmers seemed to agree, but the new programmer wasn't intimidated."

"Yes, but your program doesn't work. If mine doesn't have to work, I can make it run instantly."

- _Code Complete_, pp.595-596

Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by gruseom on Monday August 24, 2009 @03:26PM (#783028)
I love that story and have quoted it many times (though, Code Complete? really, just read Weinberg). But it doesn't apply here. Gmail search certainly works. It just doesn't have every feature.
Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by discojesus on Monday August 24, 2009 @03:42PM (#783093)
Gmail search certainly works. It just doesn't have every feature.

It's not "completely broken," but no hits for a query of "zag" in an email that contains "zagg" comes uncomfortably close to "doesn't work." (FWIW, I use gmail and haven't had any huge problems with search, although I have had to do way more work to find something than I would expect given that it's from Google).

Code Complete? really, just read Weinberg

'twas just a quick copy and paste from my fortune file. Although as far as I'm concerned there ain't nothing wrong with Code Complete.

Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by gruseom on Monday August 24, 2009 @04:54PM (#783328)
there ain't nothing wrong with Code Complete

It's ok but relatively mediocre, and in my observation usually indicates a programmer who hasn't sought out better sources.

Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by discojesus on Monday August 24, 2009 @05:03PM (#783349)
in my observation usually indicates a programmer who hasn't sought out better sources.

Those being?

Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by wcarss on Monday August 24, 2009 @08:00PM (#783728)
I don't really have an opinion to state on the actual discussion at hand, but I figured I'd toss in an old link which contains what some of "those" might be:

http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen-tol/2007-March/0...

Javier Kragen Sitaker's article/mail "My Evolution as a Programmer", recounts one coder's his growth as a programmer, career, and exposure to a variety of books throughout. It's really an excellent read, and contains some comparisons between a few good books - particularly Code Complete and The Pracice of Programming. I quote,

During this time, I read "The Practice of Programming", which is a lot like "Code Complete", but shorter and much higher in quality. I had read the same authors' "The Elements of Programming Style" back in 1995, on much the same subjects, but that book is nearly unreadable today --- it's written in PL/1 and FORTRAN IV. TPoP, aside from being written with modern programming languages, also contains insights from several decades more of the authors' experience.

-- The author in question is Brian Kernighan. Anyrate, I leave any interested person to go check the article out, if you haven't seen it already.

Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by blasdel on Monday August 24, 2009 @09:24PM (#783879)
It's a bad sign when Jeff Atwood is your biggest proponent :/
Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by discojesus on Monday August 24, 2009 @10:03PM (#783929)
I take solace in the fact that people actually read Code Complete - it's not just a bookshelf ornament. Yes, I know, Knuth is God, and his work is a masterpiece - the point is nobody actually reads the friggin thing.
Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by gruseom on Monday August 24, 2009 @05:20PM (#783397)
There are zillions, obviously. What do you want, a list? I don't know, SICP, CLRS, Knuth? Non-mainstream languages? Functional programming? For that matter, a single classic CS paper that wasn't assigned as homework? Code Complete, its grounding in software-engineering literature notwithstanding, isn't very deep.
Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by dagw on Tuesday August 25, 2009 @07:29AM (#784613)
I consider the lack of depth in Code Complete one of its great strength. You couldn't hand Knuth to a newbie programmer expect them to get anything useful out of it, whereas Code Complete will teach him a lot really useful things he can use his entire career.

If you've been working as a programmer for 12 years it probably won't teach you too many new things, but if you've been working for 12 weeks it is a great book.

Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by khafra on Tuesday August 25, 2009 @08:43AM (#784693)
In my experience, it's a more reliable heuristic to fault people for what they haven't read than for what they have read. Some of the smartest people I know can and do quote from childrens' books and anime.
Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by ajg1977 on Tuesday August 25, 2009 @03:09AM (#784356)
He got a... telegram? Safe to assume this isn't a recent tale :)

(not that its age should detract anything of course, I just found the obvious historic reference amusing).

Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by timcederman on Monday August 24, 2009 @01:07PM (#782608)
Have you used Outlook 2007 with the built-in search indexer? Incredibly quick.
Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by snprbob86 on Tuesday August 25, 2009 @02:51AM (#784333)
I've been using Outlook 2007 since it launched. It is incredibly quick... when it works. I frequently find that I can be LOOKING AT THE EMAIL I WANT. Then type a phrase that I am staring at, and not have that email appear in the results. Never mind that sometimes it will randomly start taking 60 seconds or more to return results until you restart the program.
Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by jsonscripter on Monday August 24, 2009 @01:18PM (#782633)
I didn't know. I'm stuck using Outlook 2003 at work :(
Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by TY on Monday August 24, 2009 @01:40PM (#782711)
Try Xobni search plugin - it's fast and free for the basic version. It will certainly alleviate your search pains with Outlook 2003.
Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by altano on Tuesday August 25, 2009 @08:46AM (#784695)
So it sounds like you're using Outlook 2003 on XP and don't have Windows Search (what powers Outlook instant search) installed.

Hound your incompetent IT department and say you need to search your email and you need Windows Search 4 installed on your machine instead of blaming a 6 year old product and a 8 year old operating system.

Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by andrewparker on Monday August 24, 2009 @05:17PM (#783389)
If you're stuck on Outlook 2003, Lookout is an add-on for '03 that adds blazing fast search. I find it works faster than Xobni.
Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by stevsonlee on Sunday August 30, 2009 @06:08AM (#794324)
My favourite one is Lookeen! Lookout is old and cannot search for and in docx..xobni is a matter of tase, nothing for me!
Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by mistermann on Monday August 24, 2009 @06:42PM (#783580)
+1 for Lookout...free and works like a charm!
Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by redorb on Tuesday August 25, 2009 @01:33AM (#784240)
This whole thread (outlook 2003 being slow, 07 being a lot faster) makes it seem like xobni should have sold for 20mm
Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by mattmaroon on Monday August 24, 2009 @03:05PM (#782968)
My outlook box is pretty large and it never takes more than 3 or 4 seconds. It's not the greatest search either, but it does handle substrings nicely and automatically. It works most of the time (though I'd still be much happier if it worked all of the time.)
Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by rufo on Monday August 24, 2009 @02:32PM (#782880)
An hour, really? I don't use Outlook, so I don't know if that's right - but I suppose that's why the various Outlook search plugins are so popular.

I haven't had a problem with Gmail search as described, but I would not classify it as fast. Often I'll type in a simple query and have it spend 10-20 seconds before it returns results. If I perform the same query on the same dataset in Spotlight in Mac OS X, it starts to return results instantly with the search completing within 5-10.

Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by shiranaihito on Monday August 24, 2009 @01:04PM (#782592)
It may be fast, but what you want is results.
Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by jsonscripter on Monday August 24, 2009 @01:08PM (#782610)
I think some people also want timely results. I certainly do.
Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by endtime on Monday August 24, 2009 @03:30PM (#783044)
Ideally, yes, but that doesn't appear to be an option. Given the choice between instant and incomplete results, and slightly slower but complete results, I'll take the latter.
Re:Why Can't Gmail Search? by TallGuyShort on Monday August 24, 2009 @02:00PM (#782781)
Considering the difference in speed, it's faster for me to find what I was looking for by sifting through GMail's results, than to wait for Outlook's results to show up at all. Outlook's search essentially renders my whole machine useless until it's done searching.