Sign in / up

back to article 'Don't Google Google, Googling Google is wrong', says Google

If you want to write developer documentation like a Google hotshot, you'd better kill “kill”, junk “jank” and unlearn “learnings”. Those are just a few rules from the company's newly open-sourced (oops, two sins there, verbing and hyphenation) developer documentation guide. Even though any Linux user knows “kill” is a command …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *

Page:

    1. art guerrilla
      Reply Icon

      Re: September 13, 2017

      nope, stop thinking like a machine and start demanding to be treated as a human bean... why WE human beans have to learn/bend to a machine-friendly version of the date is what is wrong with society in a nutshell...

      the only unambiguous, HUMAN-FRIENDLY date format is wed13sep2017, all the rest is giving up your humanity for the convenience of machines...

      4 1 Reply
    2. acid andy
      Reply Icon
      Stop

      Re: September 13, 2017

      As long as you read it as "September THE 13th, 2017", it sounds OK in the UK to my ear. As someone else said, it's a good US / UK compromise.

      2 0 Reply
      1. Uffish
        Reply Icon

        Re: September 13, 2017

        It's six potatoes versus half a dozen tomatoes but my computer pops up a short, unambiguous "Wednesday 13 September 2017" which I read as "Wenzday the 13th of September 2000 and 17".

        Given that my computer is in France, with local time (French ) correctly displayed and with the date written in English, the decimal point being a full stop not a comma, and monetary symbol being whatever I want - I am very content, and quite amazed at the common sense of the various programmers involved.

        1 0 Reply
  2. Inventor of the Marmite Laser Silver badge

    What about "leverage" as a verb?

    One rather hopes Google has stamped on that

    24 0 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What about "leverage" as a verb?

      They are American so they would stomp on it. Stamping it might be seen to be giving it a seal of approval.

      21 0 Reply
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What about "leverage" as a verb?

        Oh yes, I was waiting for this to happen. Someone let the pedants loose (OK, I should have said "lose" to rile them a bit more).

        I'll just get a coffee and watch it develop. Yes, that could be a contextual pun :)

        5 2 Reply
        1. Teiwaz
          Reply Icon

          Re: What about "leverage" as a verb?

          Oh yes, I was waiting for this to happen. Someone let the pedants loose (OK, I should have said "lose" to rile them a bit more).

          You must be new here. This is El Reg, the pedant Safari Park. Keep your windows closed (or preferably shut down). Stray from the path and they'll devour you in packs.

          23 0 Reply
          1. Alistair
            Reply Icon
            Coat

            Re: What about "leverage" as a verb?

            "Stray from the path and they'll devour you in packs."

            No, no, no, not packs. We prefer our victims in sammiches or sarnies!

            10 0 Reply
            1. David 132 Silver badge
              Reply Icon
              Trollface

              Re: What about "leverage" as a verb?

              We prefer our victims in sammiches or sarnies!

              Just remember that it's only a sandwich if you slice it diagonally from corner-to-corner into triangles. If sliced straight across edge-to-edge into two rectangles, it's a butty.

              And having poured my own tuppence worth of accelerant onto the flames, I shall retreat to a safe distance and watch :)

              2 0 Reply
              1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge
                Reply Icon

                Re: What about "leverage" as a verb?

                "Just remember that it's only a sandwich if you slice it diagonally from corner-to-corner into triangles."

                That should put a stop to many of these newfangled composite "sandwich" constructions.

                0 0 Reply
        2. Trigonoceps occipitalis
          Reply Icon

          Re: What about "leverage" as a verb?

          Cry "Havoc" and let slip the pedants of El Reg!

          7 0 Reply
      2. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: What about "leverage" as a verb?

        They could "table" it instead...

        8 0 Reply
        1. Spanners Silver badge
          Reply Icon
          Go

          Re: What about "leverage" as a verb?

          I suggest we Dog Ear that for now.

          4 0 Reply
    2. fidodogbreath
      Reply Icon

      Re: What about "leverage" as a verb?

      Ditto for "architect" as a verb. That usage needs to die in a fire.

      5 0 Reply
  3. Pomgolian
    FAIL

    Because It's Not Google

    I can't help thinking they're kind of missing the point: To be so synonymous with something that your name becomes a verb is surely evidence of significant if not total market penetration.

    I always chortle every time I catch one of those tortuous scenes in the remake of Hawai'i 5 0 - the ones where they're trying to convince you to "bing" things. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ug8jrja7M

    Guess Micro$oft will be ready to hoover up the honours.

    8 1 Reply
    1. nagyeger
      Reply Icon

      Re: Because It's Not Google

      Yes, but they don't want to become /so/ synonymous that the verb becomes leached of meaning. e,g. "Should I hoover that up with the dyson or the electrolux?",

      "Did you google with yahoo or altavista back then?"

      14 0 Reply
      1. Nick Kew
        Reply Icon

        Re: Because It's Not Google

        "Did you google with yahoo or altavista back then?"

        I seem to recollect googling with infoseek before altavista existed.

        No, wait, googling didn't exist back then. The nearest was probably giggling.

        3 0 Reply
        1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge
          Reply Icon

          Re: Because It's Not Google

          I seem to recollect googling with infoseek before altavista existed.

          No, wait, googling didn't exist back then. The nearest was probably giggling.

          In earlier days it was a different thing that started with a "g": gopher.

          5 0 Reply
          1. jake Silver badge
            Reply Icon

            Re: Because It's Not Google

            But gopher isn't the search engine any more than the WWW is a search engine. In gopher-space, Veronica is the search engine, with a little help from jughead and/or jugtail..

            Wide Area Information Search (WAIS) is arguably more useful than gopher+veronica& the jugs, and indeed is often used as a supplement to them. Note that's current tense.

            3 2 Reply
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Because It's Not Google

      "To be so synonymous with something that your name becomes a verb is surely evidence of significant if not total market penetration."

      Such use can be a slippery slope to losing your official trademark recognition. Previous examples are: hoover, aspirin; petrol.

      13 0 Reply
      1. Olivier2553
        Reply Icon

        Re: Because It's Not Google

        "Such use can be a slippery slope to losing your official trademark recognition. Previous examples are: hoover, aspirin; petrol."

        It would only show that if they had the edge at some point, they loose it.

        If they continue to be at the top, one will always google with Google.

        1 2 Reply

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Because It's Not Google

      Yes, it's so.... odd on TV shows when people use Bing or Windows phones.

      It's like an alternate reality show.

      A bit like in the novel Making History where the funny little pictures on your PC screen are call "glyphs"

      5 0 Reply
      1. Updraft102
        Reply Icon

        Re: Because It's Not Google

        "A bit like in the novel Making History where the funny little pictures on your PC screen are call "glyphs""

        If they are pictures on an otherwise flat background, like on a Windows desktop, they're icons, but if they are meant to be part of a predefined UI button or other UI element, they're referred to as glyphs.

        1 0 Reply
    5. staggers
      Reply Icon

      Re: Because It's Not Google

      And you wouldn't believe how hard Hoover tried to stop being used as the name for all vacuum cleaners, since most of the cleaners sold are not Hoovers at all.

      1 0 Reply
    6. It wasnt me
      Reply Icon

      Re: Because It's Not Google

      By your own argument surely your last sentence should by now be "Guess Micro$oft will be ready to dyson up the honours."

      0 0 Reply
      1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Because It's Not Google

        question1 = "Do Hoover even still make Hoovers? whats the market share now?"

        question2 = replace (question1 ,"Hoover" , "JCB")

        0 0 Reply
        1. MJI Silver badge
          Reply Icon

          Re: Because It's Not Google

          No Hoover make toasters

          And yes for ages I wondered why people put their carpets in toasters.

          0 0 Reply
    7. MJI Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Because It's Not Google

      Beinfg old enough to use internet pre Google, I search for stuff, using a search engine.

      Which search engine depends on annoyingness or lack of

      1 0 Reply
  4. jake Silver badge

    "If you want to write developer documentation like a Google hotshot"

    Thank you for asking, but no, I really don't.

    The world has enough style guides, it doesn't need another one.

    7 0 Reply
  5. Andy 73 Silver badge

    Surely....

    A true developer just releases the source code and users infer the documentation from that? Remember also that comments in source code are a sure sign your code is not expressive enough.

    15 6 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Surely....

      "Remember also that comments in source code are a sure sign your code is not expressive enough"

      Five or 10 minutes spent with this should convince you that is bollocks:

      https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=ecda85e70277ef24e44a1f6bc00243cebd19f985

      Yes, I know you are taking the piss, have a UV 8)

      4 0 Reply
      1. Alistair
        Reply Icon
        Coat

        Re: Surely....

        dear god.

        the whole cpuid bit sounds like something I'd write in my scripts......

        Thanks for a morning chuckle.

        4 0 Reply
        1. David 132 Silver badge
          Reply Icon
          Coat

          Re: Surely....

          the whole cpuid bit sounds like something I'd write in my scripts...

          Let me guess... the tale of how Cpuid fires arrows at lovers who don't use autocorrect?

          2 0 Reply
      2. Missing Semicolon Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Surely....

        Those comments are an education. We learn about Intel CPU architecture. And have a little fun.

        0 0 Reply
    2. nijam Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Surely....

      > comments in source code are a sure sign your code is not expressive enough

      The best you can hope for with comments in source code is that they don't contradict the source code...

      14 0 Reply
      1. Stork Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Surely....

        > The best you can hope for with comments in source code is that they don't contradict the source code...

        I remember one case where it surely did not, it said "abominable hack" and it was!

        5 1 Reply
        1. Swarthy
          Reply Icon

          Re: Surely....

          Sorry.

          0 0 Reply
        2. Nick Kew
          Reply Icon

          Re: Surely....

          I remember one case where it surely did not, it said "abominable hack" and it was!

          Don't think that's me, but if the adjective had been, say, "ugly" or "hideous" I could be a candidate. Though I'd probably accompany it with some more suggestion: why it's necessary, how it might be improved when I or anyone have time.

          2 0 Reply
          1. Stork Silver badge
            Reply Icon

            Re: Surely....

            There was more explanation - AFAIR along the lines "I don't know exactly how the original code works, but this sorts it." It was really awful, the original.

            2 1 Reply
          2. Tannin
            Reply Icon

            Re: Surely....

            The worst sort of comment is the dreaded "I have no idea how this works". And yes, one or two of my own beautifully coded little darlings bear this mark of shame. I think it happens late at night after many hours of frustration and trying bad ideas because you have run out of good ones. Then you go to bed and forget about it. Some days or weeks later, you look at the code and .... and you have no idea how it works. You know perfectly well that you should re-write it, but after all it does work, and it took hours to write and ... and .... and .... and ...

            # I have no idea how this works

            2 0 Reply
            1. illiad
              Reply Icon

              Re: Surely....

              #put plenty of

              # wordy comments in!!! :)

              0 0 Reply
            2. Grooke
              Reply Icon

              Re: Surely....

              "When I wrote this code, only God and I understood it. Now... only God knows."

              0 0 Reply
      2. Nick Kew
        Reply Icon

        Re: Surely....

        The best you can hope for with comments in source code is that they don't contradict the source code...

        On the contrary. When they contradict the source code, they offer valuable clues as to how the code has evolved, and useful hooks for searching the change control archives.

        Or into the thought processes of the developer, if they are contemporaneous.

        1 0 Reply
  6. Elmer Phud

    That'll confuse users

    So many people say their browser is 'Google' as they have never changed the homepage.

    For them, going to Google to then go to Google search is how they run.

    It's al Google to them.

    6 0 Reply
    1. jmch Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: That'll confuse users

      "Don't Google Google."

      The first rule of Google is "You do not talk about Google"

      The second rule of Google is "You do not talk about Google"

      etc

      5 0 Reply
      1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
        Reply Icon
        Stop

        Re: That'll confuse users

        I thought if you googled Google it would break the internet...

        12 0 Reply
        1. russsh
          Reply Icon

          Re: That'll confuse users

          No, that's only if Google googles Google.

          4 0 Reply
          1. VinceH
            Reply Icon
            Coat

            Re: That'll confuse users

            "No, that's only if Google googles Google."

            But what happens if Google googles Google Doodles?

            0 0 Reply
      2. Robin
        Reply Icon

        Re: That'll confuse users

        The first rule of Robot Club is "You do not talk about Robot Club"

        The second rule of Robot Club is "You DO NOT talk about Robot Club"

        Oh no sorry, the second rule is "No smoking"

        7 0 Reply

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like