Well... there goes my day!

And of course, who could forget: WTF?! 

Can't Believe

Stupid

Holy (fuck|shit|crap)

(Evil|Ugly) (hack|klud?ge)

You can escape the space (\ ) to get the two terms together:

(evil|ugly|stupid)\ (hack|klud?ge) 

bonehead

kode kiddies

sheesh 

fucking around 

"i hate"

goldmine^2
 

This is inspiring!

What was i thinking?

duh

this shouldn't work

i'm too tired

Okay, maybe this is a Google Code Search WTF.

I ran a search on "yet to do:" 

The result was first page, Results 1 - 10 of about 74,100

Next page, Results 11 - 14 of about 74,100

From here on in, clicking 'Next' or any of the page numbers does nothing. I am guessed it might have something to do with the colon, so I removed it. The search turned up slightly different results, but those results exhibit the same behavior on the 3rd page.

Any ideas? 

http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=paula+bean&btnG=Search

Biatch

rev:

This site is a goldmine. I can't stop reading all of the stupid comments.
Fucking Shit
In Case Some Idiot
The Guy Who Wrote This

Nice find, this is great!   

rev:

...

In Case Some Idiot

...

Yes, I may well do any of those things. Nice to know people take my special needs into account when developing software.

Nice find.

I'm sure many of you have already searched this:

Brillant

BTW, I see a possible spamtrap in Google's new code search... Many dev's will put their email address in their comments, and you could possible program a spambot to parse the search results in search of those email addresses...

You can use this site to search for buggy code too.  I didn't think of this, I saw it elsewhere, but it's pretty interesting:

1<<16-1 

 Note:  "1 << 16 - 1" is the same as "1 << 15", not "(1 << 16) - 1"

Pebkac

(Problem exists between chair and keyboard) 

madjo:

BTW, I see a possible spamtrap in Google's new code search... Many dev's will put their email address in their comments, and you could possible program a spambot to parse the search results in search of those email addresses...

That's a good observation. On Google Groups, they automatically munge email addresses in the 'From' sections of the post (and maybe the bodies, too - can't remember). They should be able to apply the same technology here easily enough.  

Best line ever:

"I am drunk and coding
            like I am the greatest coder of all time."

beautiful

R.Flowers:

Well... there goes my day!

And of course, who could forget: WTF?! 

Hey, it works! On the first page, it has the definitive "WTF" comment:

 

  i  = 0x5f3759df - ( i >> 1 );  // what the fuck?

From Quake III Arena source code.

(The answer, in this case: "Don't ask. Carmack is a math genius, you aren't.")

 

Hah! This is too easy! 

who's idea was
blows goats
me a headache
head hurts
dammit
oh no

Hmm...

PORN!

 It doesn't find very much though :(

Also, how the hell do they manage to apply bad regexps (like [a]*[b]*[c]*) to so much data and still produce the correct results in a (relatively) low amount of time (0.4 seconds)?
 

Also, how the hell do they manage to apply bad regexps (like [a]*[b]*[c]*) to so much data and still produce the correct results in a (relatively) low amount of time (0.4 seconds)?

Because google search isn't built on regexs. 

try the following

fortran

"no idea"

hope -warranty

  "you are the weakest link"

"oh my god" killed 

reminds me of a comment I once saw in someone's code

 "No sleep here, we're raping the processor"

There's a couple of "until 0=1" bits in there...

How much does it tell us that there are 200 hits for "How does this work?"  and 117000 for "I don't know how"?

I found this funny, too.

If you hack on this and slow it down, I, my children and my children's children will curse you.
........
(---code---)
........
* in the right way, and the less we change the less likely
* we are to introduce new bugs. And I'm scared of the curse in the
* comments at the top of this file

SpComb:

Hmm...

PORN!

 It doesn't find very much though :(

No, but XXX does, it's a common alternate FIXME comment...

I'm not quite keen on regexps, but I get good results with

[a-z_\-\.0-9]+@[a-z_\-\.0-9]+\.[a-z]+ 

... And that was a reply to this, but i'm too stupid to click on "quote" :

madjo:

BTW, I see a possible spamtrap in Google's new code search... Many dev's will put their email address in their comments, and you could possible program a spambot to parse the search results in search of those email addresses...

That's a good observation. On Google Groups, they automatically munge email addresses in the 'From' sections of the post (and maybe the bodies, too - can't remember). They should be able to apply the same technology here easily enough. 

You have no idea how many times this happens to me...

pubic

blah:

I'm not quite keen on regexps, but I get good results with

[a-z_\-\.0-9]+@[a-z_\-\.0-9]+\.[a-z]+ 

... And that was a reply to this, but i'm too stupid to click on "quote" :

madjo:

BTW, I see a possible spamtrap in Google's new code search... Many dev's will put their email address in their comments, and you could possible program a spambot to parse the search results in search of those email addresses...

That's a good observation. On Google Groups, they automatically munge email addresses in the 'From' sections of the post (and maybe the bodies, too - can't remember). They should be able to apply the same technology here easily enough. 

Sounds dangerous... and not everything that looks like an email address is an email address. Even then, the correct address being present could be critical to the working of the code.

Either way, Google is only making it easier to search information that's already out there on web sites. Should we also suggest that they do something about the easy access to email addresses by searching google.com for "@hotmail.com"? 

igitur:

You have no idea how many times this happens to me...

pubic

Yes, embarrased as I am to admit it, I often find myself declaring my pubic void.