| 10:12 pm on Sep 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Well there you go. "We've got serious problems"
At least they acknowledge it. :)
| 10:15 pm on Sep 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>Well there you go. "We've got serious problems"
But would you work for a company that said
"We've got it all sewn up, but maybe we can find something for you to do if you join us"?
| 10:24 pm on Sep 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Dang I wish I could code. That sounds like fun!
| 10:28 pm on Sep 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
We have less than 10 sites, less than 10,000 uniques a day, trust me we've got serious problems too. If I could solve them by finding the best of the best for a total prize fund of £25,000 I would do it today.
The Googler who came up with that idea needs a bonus imho.
| 10:29 pm on Sep 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hehe, Googles typical brand of humor. I'll apply, code wizing is the only thing I'm an absolut expert at. Lets see if it pays as well as webmastering and web coding.
| 10:33 pm on Sep 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
DerekH ... no, I just had to chuckle when I read it.
| 11:38 pm on Sep 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Writing reliable, extensible, easily understood (and therefore maintainable) code is an art. Whilst deadlines are a reality, speed should not be the first, second or even third criterion for measuring a programmers skill.
However, including VB.Net as an accepted language and omitting Delphi is just plain stupid. Borland Pascal is far from the perfect programming language, but when it comes to creating elegant code it beats C/Basic and their relatives hands down.
C is an intrinsically ugly and dirty language. It has therefore resulted in a vast amount of ugly, dirty and buggy code being written over the years. MS Windows is the prime example. Of course C programmers always claim that Pascal is slow and inefficient. However, the truth is that when C programmers attempt to write in Pascal they produce slow and inefficient code and then blame the language rather than themselves.
| 12:00 am on Sep 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
We all have or favorite and unfavorite languages :)
Those of us who migrated from IBM 360 to UNIX have a great fondness for everything related to UNIX, that obviously includes C.
| 12:25 am on Sep 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
they have hundreds of employees, quite possibly some of the best programmers / sysadmin / system engineers in the world .. and yet they still have the balls to openly admit they are screwed.
quote of the day - "We have some serious problems.. "
| 12:32 am on Sep 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Amazing, yeah. Geez, either that's some seriously bad wording or an admission of the truth. "serious problems"! LOL!
| 12:37 am on Sep 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|they have hundreds of employees, quite possibly some of the best programmers / sysadmin / system engineers in the world .. and yet they still have the balls to openly admit they are screwed. |
There was a theory in another thread that Google's current problems are due to having taken on some former MS programmers. If true, that would explain a great deal.
I appreciate that C (and its derivatives) is much loved the world over, however, omitting Delphi from a programming competition is crazy. I suspect that its advanced string handling, and other features mean that Delphi programmers would be at an unfair advantage.
| 1:06 am on Sep 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|including VB.Net as an accepted language and omitting Delphi is just plain stupid |
And Python is neither in the list. Given that Google has a fame of liking it I find that a little odd.
|I suspect that its advanced string handling, and other features mean that Delphi programmers would be at an unfair advantage. |
If that's the case then it's silly. The contest is about "read the problem statements, then code solutions, compile and test those solutions and submit the code for points"; slowing the pace making the developer code (for the nth time) its own primitives would take all the fun away.
| 4:06 am on Sep 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
topcoder has been doing contests this way for a long time.
it looks like google thought it would be cool to leverage that.
i know a couple of people who've won a few topcoder contests. i suspect they're drooling right about now.
| 8:54 am on Sep 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
What does the verb to leverage mean?
| 3:26 pm on Sep 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
From google's dictionary, "leverage" means:
| 3:57 pm on Sep 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
(a) nnoying Marketing Talk. IE - Think Outside The Box, Stretch The Envelope, Brand Synergy, Flawless Implementation of Key Solutions, Game Plan, Hardball, Value Added, Strategic Goals, Gap Analysis, At The End Of The Day, Strategic Fit..etc..
| 3:59 pm on Sep 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I'm neither a coder nor a math whiz, but um,
gollu gee willikers, I'm more icnlined to think the latter portion of the thread sub-title is the more accurate.
To me, "We've got serious problems" is not an admission of trouble or a cry for help but simple marketing fluff.
Problem does not automatically equate to trouble
Problems doesn't have to equate to SNAFU or fubar
problem: 1. a question to be considered, solved, or answered
| 4:05 pm on Sep 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Problem does not automatically equate to trouble
Houston, we've got a problem.
Don't remember - was this marketing, ...!? ;)
| 4:24 pm on Sep 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
In this case, I think the "serious problem" is staying the best with such an over-whelming task. Think Sisyphus and the boulder.
| 4:27 pm on Sep 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
This is definetely interesting ... at least Google is finally admitting they have a problem.
| 4:50 pm on Sep 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Its a conspiracy!
This is the same weekend as RubyConf 2003, and I'm already giving a talk there (and have plane tickets).
| 5:36 pm on Sep 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
ya know, it's times like this when i think it's too bad that message boards aren't tied together with mindful clarity in some sort of enfiladic version of wikipedia.
but i can't be bothered with making it so, for i've got nothing better to do than to think how glad i am that i think that i'm glad that i am.
| 6:03 pm on Sep 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think the math/computer science sense of problem [mathworld.wolfram.com] is lost on everyone here. I'm pretty sure that's the sense in which Google means it has problems.
| 6:09 pm on Sep 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|From google's dictionary, "leverage" means: |
My goodness, this is not "Google's dictionary"; it's dictionary.com. Dictionary.com in turn licenses content from American Heritage, which is the source of the definition you quoted.
(Sorry to be a nitpicking jerk :) -- what you said is completely understandable, it's just that attribution on the web has always been a big pet issue of mine.)
| 6:15 pm on Sep 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
That's a good point, Doug.
I thought these posters were just kidding around, but now that my sense of humor has leveled off, it seems like these posts suggest no exposure to complexity theory.
[edited by: dpplgngr at 6:17 pm (utc) on Sep. 18, 2003]
| 6:15 pm on Sep 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Ahhhh.... that 'serious problem' thing is just ad copy. IMO
| 7:16 pm on Sep 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
No, that's not ad copy. That's standard geekspeak. I used to work in a company with 1000 accountants. One of the handful of _very_ bright ones would call me every now and then and say, "I've got a little problem..." Didn't mean anyone was about to die, didn't even mean the company was about to crash and burn....just meant that the surmountability of the current challenge facing her was not readily calculable. To me, it meant I was going to have to do some serious algo-whacking or user interface design or probably both: because if the challenge had been surmountable with the tools at hand, it was a sure bet she'd have already surmounted it.
Google's saying the same thing: challenge. For programmers, it's a stronger draw than mere money. [This not being a programmers' forum, many people may find that hard to believe. Fair enough. If you could believe it, you'd have probably considered being a programmer instead of whatever you are.]
| 7:18 pm on Sep 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Good thing they haven't done an IPO. I can imagine screaming headlines, "Google Admits Serious Problems". These would be followed by a spate of shareholder lawsuits accusing Google of knowing full well about serious internal problems but failing to disclose them to innocent shareholders. ;)
| 8:41 pm on Sep 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
At first I chuckled when I read your note... but after thinking about it for a moment, I just shook my head, realizing that it was actually not far from what would indeed likely happen. It's similar to the issue of why so many lawyers insidiously prevent their clients from ever offering sincere apologies (despite recent studies which show that a huge number of lawsuits could actually be PREVENTED or DEFUSED by such an act of contrition!)
We Americans often fly off the handle when we perceive threats to our short term gains. And while perhaps this belongs in the Google IPO topic, I am worried about what will happen when Google goes public <sigh>.
| This 50 message thread spans 2 pages: 50 (  2 ) > > |