Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Guido Goes Google 255

revividus writes "It seems that Python creator Guido van Rossum has received an offer from Google, and accepted it. Here is also some confirmation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Guido Goes Google

Comments Filter:
  • That's great. I'm moving all of my scripts to Python now. If the guy's name is Guido, it's gotta be good!
    • by moro_666 ( 414422 ) <kulminaator@gmai ... m minus language> on Thursday December 22, 2005 @04:41PM (#14321523) Homepage
      I dont think that the name Guido will give you any guarantees on the language quality ...

      However, could this be Google's move against Sun and Microsoft ?

      Sun has Java
      Microsoft has C#

      It would be pretty logical that google would like to control something that is comparable to sun and microsoft's bigtime server languages. Python has moderately fast bytecode (google stuff could improve a lot here) and it's got a decent oop model and a threading api. i/o is also usable. i think zope fans can hype their favourite thing in the responding posts too.

      i can't wait for the first version of GPython or Gython !
      • i can't wait for the first version of GPython or Gython !

        Pygthon

        :-)

      • Umm... First of all Python has been part of Google since the beginning. There's even a quote about it on the Python.org homepage. Secondarily, Python is still much slower than C, and it's used internally or for prototyping, from what I've heard, at Google. Once an external project is prototyped and "proof of concept"ed they move to a faster language. Python is about speed of development, not necessarily execution and they would NEVER use Zope for Google, it's dog slow.
        • by NewbieProgrammerMan ( 558327 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @05:09PM (#14321843)
          Once an external project is prototyped and "proof of concept"ed they move to a faster language.
          Based on what I've heard from people that work there, this is not always the case (I assume you're talking about re-writing entire applications in "something faster" after the Python prototype proves the concept). Sometimes it's not necessary to optimize the shit out of everything; to do so would be a waste of resources. One of the nice things about Python is that you can re-implement hotspots in other languages (such as C or C++) without having to rewrite the whole application (yes, I know you can do that sort of thing in other languages, too).
          • Correct. (Score:3, Informative)

            absolutely.

            Often times it's only required to rewrite the most crucial bits of an app. This is fairly straightforward in Python.
          • by drgonzo59 ( 747139 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @05:58PM (#14322376)
            The ability to inline C code in Python rocks.

            I like weave but I am waiting to see what will come out of the PyPy [codespeak.net] project - the author is the one who wrote Psyco (the JIT compiler for Python).

            Then there is Pyrex where Python can manipulate C data with language extensions, as opposed to weave where C code is inlined into the python code and Python data is manipulated in C.

            It is true that as a scripting language Python is slower than (byte)compiled languages. But it is slower by a constant factor. In other words people would say "Your Python solution is 4x slower than my Java solution!". What this means though is that just by upgrading the hardware that Python runs on, one can reach the speed of execution of the compiled program. In other words Python on an Athlon 64 fx 57 might run faster than java bytecode on a 1Ghz Athlon, or might even run faster than C on a 100Mhz machine (I am just making these numbers up, maybe someone knows of some benchmarks?). The point is that application that required C 15-20 years ago can probably be re-written in Python now.

            • > It is true that as a scripting language Python is slower than (byte)compiled languages. But it is slower
              > by a constant factor.

              Python is just as fast as c or java when it comes to io-intensive applications:
              http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=5602&page= 3 [osnews.com]
              That code that cannot be optimized by Pycho is considerably slower, though the above benchmark exaggerates it through errors in their use of python.

              My application processes over twenty million events a day through python - whic
      • by Augusto ( 12068 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @05:02PM (#14321761) Homepage
        Considering that last year google hired some of the main Java language guys (which still do talks about Java) last year; Joshua Bloch and Neal Gafter). Their background is mainly language/compiler design, my impression was and still is that I wouldn't be surprised if google was just working on their own (new) language. This just confirms this a little bit more ...

      • by YA_Python_dev ( 885173 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @05:19PM (#14321949) Journal

        Python has moderately fast bytecode (google stuff could improve a lot here)

        A very interesting project that aims to create a faster Python implementation is PyPy [codespeak.net], funded by the EU, by google (with Summer of Code) and by a lot of programmers that donate their own time.

        Even the Psyco [sourceforge.net] guys say that the future is in PyPy!

        • Sounds cool, but "The self-contained PyPy version (single-threaded and using the Boehm-Demers-Weiser garbage collector) now runs around 10-20 times slower than CPython" it looks like they still have quite a ways to go.

          Reminds me of the hypesters (yeah I made it up) around Java that said it would be faster than C code eventually. Never happened. Hopefully the PyPy people have more luck.
          • Reminds me of the hypesters (yeah I made it up) around Java that said it would be faster than C code eventually.

            You are right, but this isn't only hype: what they mean when they write that "the secret goal is being faster-than-C" is not that your Python program will run faster than a C equivalent (although try to write a simple md5sum in Python that reads 64kB per loop and benchmark it against the GNU implementation... you will be surprised ;-)). What they mean is that they hope to run Python programs

      • by DARKFORCE123 ( 525408 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @06:32PM (#14322689)
        It would be pretty logical that google would like to control something that is comparable to sun and microsoft's bigtime server languages. Python has moderately fast bytecode (google stuff could improve a lot here) and it's got a decent oop model and a threading api. i/o is also usable. i think zope fans can hype their favourite thing in the responding posts too.

        Microsoft hasn't been asleep either when it comes to Python. They hired the original guy who worked on the Iron Python project http://www.ironpython.com/ [ironpython.com] which brought Python to .NET.

        The latest updates on the Iron Python is right here
        http://www.gotdotnet.com/workspaces/workspace.aspx ?id=ad7acff7-ab1e-4bcb-99c0-57ac5a3a9742 [gotdotnet.com]
      • What would the logic be?
      • by julesh ( 229690 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @07:18PM (#14323051)
        Python has moderately fast bytecode (google stuff could improve a lot here) and it's got a decent oop model and a threading api.

        Python's biggest problem from a performance perspective is that the language effectively guarantees operations on several internal objects (e.g. lists, dictionaries, etc) are atomic (from a multithreading point of view). This means that some kind of lock must be held when working with such objects. Because this is how most Python programs spend most of their time, Python usually just has a global lock for all such objects that threads hold whenever they aren't blocked. This means that multithreaded Python apps do not usually benefit from having multiprocessing systems. The obvious alternative (per-object locks acquired when necessary) doesn't seem to help, as it slows single-thread performance significantly.

        I think this flaw means that Python cannot really compete with Java or C# on big server systems. And I don't see how to fix it, either, without breaking the beauty of the language.
  • that's it? (Score:5, Funny)

    by nazsco ( 695026 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @04:35PM (#14321439) Journal
    well, let's hope the dupe has more info than those two lines.
    • by BLueSS ( 940860 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @04:40PM (#14321499)
      More than two lines? Why? That might actually make it an article!
      • by revividus ( 643168 ) <phil DOT crissman AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday December 22, 2005 @04:48PM (#14321592) Homepage
        Yeah, I know. I had nothing to add, sorry. ;-)

        Did you want me to say that Google was a search engine and that Python was a programming language?

        • by anaesthetica ( 596507 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @05:45PM (#14322234) Homepage Journal
          Next time try throwing in some over-the-top, sensationalized, flamebait speculation. More points if it's a complete non-sequitur. For example:

          "It seems that Python creator Guido van Rossum has received an offer from Google, and accepted it. Here is also some confirmation. Does this finally confirm that vi is better than emacs?"

          or

          "It seems that Python creator Guido van Rossum has received an offer from Google, and accepted it. Here is also some confirmation. Is this move calculated to counter Apple's move to Intel?"

          See? It's not so hard.


          • Mod +1 (funny because it's true...)
          • by zaguar ( 881743 )
            And to cap it off, add a slight disclaimer that 'you don't want to start a flamewar'.

            It seems that Python creator Guido van Rossum has received an offer from Google, and accepted it. Here is also some confirmation. Not to flame the flames, but does this unexpected move confirm that PostgreSQL is slipping behind MySQL in the conformance to SQL Standards?

            or

            It seems that Python creator Guido van Rossum has received an offer from Google, and accepted it. Here is also some confirmation. Would he have been

        • Yeah, I know. I had nothing to add, sorry. ;-)

          Did you want me to say that Google was a search engine and that Python was a programming language?


          You could like mention that Guido is NOT a red-cheeked yodel-meister from the Austrian Alps.
    • I'm wondering what kind of "offer" it was. The variety that you can't refuse, perhaps? ;)
  • by ShatteredDream ( 636520 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @04:40PM (#14321501) Homepage
    I really do think it has been hampered by having a less rigorously standardized basic class library than Java or .NET. It would be great to see Python get some better documentation tools as well so that it'd be easy to generate documentation on par with the Java and .NET documentation.

    And of course if Google wanted to really screw with both Sun and Microsoft, especially Microsoft, they could create their own cross-platform web and gui toolkits and a free RAD GUI builder a la Visual Studio for Python. If they could create a Python framework on par with Swing or Windows Forms, there'd be quite a bit of wailing and gnashing of teeth in both camps :)
    • It would be great to see Python get some better documentation tools

      Doxygen [stack.nl] claims to support Python.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      It would be great to see Python get some better documentation tools as well so that it'd be easy to generate documentation on par with the Java and .NET documentation.

      I've always found help(object in question) in the interpreter to be more efficient than looking it up in the sun javadocs or on msdn.

      And of course if Google wanted to really screw with both Sun and Microsoft, especially Microsoft, they could create their own cross-platform web and gui toolkits

      WxWidgets?
      PyGTK?
      • by YA_Python_dev ( 885173 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @05:34PM (#14322120) Journal

        WxWidgets?

        Good point. I think that Python [python.org] + wxPython [wxpython.org] + wxGlade [sf.net] is a very powerful combination for clean, fast and maintainable GUI development.

        If you do GUIs I suggest to try these tools: they are simple and powerful (wxPython even contains additional classes that are not present in wxWidgets).

      • WxWidgets?
        PyGTK?


        Both of those are substantially lower-level than the grandparent's examples (SWING and Windows.Forms, IIRC). Wx seems to be pretty much an MFC reimplementation ported to Python, while GTK seems to take a different but equally low-level approach to it all.

        I'm currently working on a UI framework based around an XML object description framework and layout engine that might fit the bill better. Currently only C++ is supported, but Python's on the roadmap. Not sure what license I'll be able to
    • by a_karbon_devel_005 ( 733886 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @05:11PM (#14321868)
      I really do think it has been hampered by having a less rigorously standardized basic class library than Java or .NET. It would be great to see Python get some better documentation tools as well so that it'd be easy to generate documentation on par with the Java and .NET documentation.

      Actually Python's interactive interpreter and class/method documentation strings work very well. Most times it's much nicer to simply be able to DO stuff and look up help at the same time rather than go sifting through some huge morass of automated docs.

      Also, the next time you can do something in Java or .NET that you can't do in Python, let me know.
    • Python is self documenting. You should be documenting it as you go along. Everything in python is an object, and every object has a doc string, therefore EVERYTHING in python has documentation built into it. Variables, functions, classes, anything and everything.
    • by AT ( 21754 )
      I agree the class libraries are a bit hodge-podge, but the documentation tools seem to be on par with Java/.NET. A bit less structured, but then python is a less structured language, too. Plus with pydoc, I can browse the docs with a browser (a la javadoc, but dynamically generated) or from the commandline.

      In my opinion, the more fancy stuff people have used javadoc tags for (object relational mapping, test cases and contraints, etc.) should be done with annotations anyway, and annotations are supported b
    • I really do think it has been hampered by having a less rigorously standardized basic class library than Java or .NET.

      I disagree. Python (like Perl) tends to mirror the underlying OS and libraries in some no-nonsense, pragmatic way. Java and .NET want to be your OS, and seem to make a point of reinventing as many wheels as possible, hoping you forget how to use the ones you already have in the process. My wheels are Unix, and I do not plan to replace them. Python doesn't try to force me; that's one reason

    • by goon ( 2774 )

      `... Python get some better
      documentation tools as well so that
      it'd be easy to generate documentation
      on par with the Java and .NET
      documentation. ...`

      I make this same mistake everytime I program in python. If you dont read the docs [1] & other peoples code you can write functional code, but with a third to a half bloat penalty. That is of course unless you read lots of example code or the docs...

      So check again. Because PyDoc [2] is a tool that displays the
  • An assumption (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 22, 2005 @04:41PM (#14321520)
    Everyone seems to assume that his main purpose with Google is to do Python.

    I'm not saying that assumption is not true. It's just that he is a huge talent. If I had a gargantuan project to run, I'd hire him no matter what the language.

    I wonder if the management types have figured out that anyone who can create and run a large successful open source project is a much better manager than the average MBA.
    • Re:An assumption (Score:5, Insightful)

      by linuxmop ( 37039 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @04:51PM (#14321634)
      This is a well-founded assumption. Much of Google's internal development is done in Python. Thus, it is important that Python development continue quickly and continue in a direction that benefits Google. They cannot risk that Guido find himself unable to afford to continue as Python project leader.

      No, they are most certainly hiring Guido to continue Python development. It would be a disaster for Python, and thus for Google, if they diverted his talent toward some random Google project.

      • This is a well-founded assumption. Much of Google's internal development is done in Python.


        Do we know how much truth there is to this? I was under the impression that much of Google these days is Java (GMail, Adwords, Adsense, etc).
        • Re:An assumption (Score:3, Informative)

          by gstein ( 2577 ) *
          Oh, quite true. At Google, we use Python, Java, and C++ for all of our work. Python is critical to our development and infrastructure.

          I gave a keynote at PyCon last year about the importance of Python at Google. Some people transcribed the talk. You should be able to find it via Google. (heh!)
    • Re:An assumption (Score:3, Informative)

      by viega ( 564643 )
      He's supposed to be spending 50% of his time on Python itself, which is a lot more than he was able to spend on it in his last job.
    • Re: An assumption (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Master Bait ( 115103 )
      Well... I bet he's going to be the lead software engineer for Google-AOL's awesome new browser !
    • Re:An assumption (Score:5, Informative)

      by gstein ( 2577 ) * on Thursday December 22, 2005 @06:32PM (#14322696) Homepage
      Ha! Guido would quit in a heartbeat if you tried to make him manage people. That just isn't where he's at. He's absolutely brilliant and loves to write excellent code. Great. We're gonna let him do just that :-)

      In any case: yeah, we hired him because we want him to work on Python itself. And as John says later in this thread -- about half his time.
  • Python v. Perl (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Shadow Wrought ( 586631 ) <shadow.wrought@O ... il.com minus bsd> on Thursday December 22, 2005 @04:41PM (#14321522) Homepage Journal
    So... Since Guido got an offer and Larry Wall didn't, does that mean that Google has tipped its hand in the debate?
  • Maybe all the hype around Java did disappear. This is what you get when drinking decaf.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 22, 2005 @04:48PM (#14321600)
    The winning offer was the one that had first-line indented paragraphs.

    We just love a guy that gets so wrapped up in his work!

    We've got penguins, we've got pythons, and we've got a lemur with a minigun...this zoo rocks!

    After hearing the report, Ballmer threw a Hissssy fit.

    Someone reported a problem with a mouse at Google Central and the recruiter got to work on hiring the python guy.

    With a keen eye on competition, Google is just trying to catch up to the number of reptiles employed by Microsoft.
    • I hate you so much. Consider yourself pelted in the face with tomatos and pulled off the stage with one of those giant hook dinguses. No wonder you posted as an AC, I wouldn't want my name on that post either.
  • by suso ( 153703 ) * on Thursday December 22, 2005 @04:49PM (#14321615) Homepage Journal
    So is google becoming the new Xerox Parc?
    • by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @04:53PM (#14321659)
      Considering they're actually bringing out products that people USE, I'd say not. :)
      • some people just don't 'get it.'

        Xerox is the best example of people who give away the store trying to sell the butt wad to their customers.

        They were so focused on selling photocopiers that any idea presented to them had to be couched in terms that they could understand. (Their 'selling seminars' were also, in my opinion, tissues of lies because the product sold itself, in spite of what those Bozos were spewing. When they got some competition the company just folded until the got some management who hadn't '
    • No .. to do that they would need to make amazing things and then throw them away saying no one will ever want that..

      google is making amazing things.. and they know everyone wants them

      Parc = !AxF(x)
      Google = AxF(x)
    • So is google becoming the new Xerox Parc?

      Good question. The only difference is that Google actually makes stuff that people use. Not to diss Xerox PARC in any shape or form, but Google is phenomenal in that it is a profitable and valuable entire company, not a subsidiary, that simply will not stop.

      Pretty soon I'll just have to ask Google what I'm going to eat for lunch. It tells me almost everything else. I think its sick that Google has become the best phone book available, a reverse phone directory, a
      • Hmm... I went to Google.com, and typed in "What should I eat for lunch?" I hit the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button, and it sent me here [nih.gov]....

        Does Google know something I don't know?

    • I'd say it's more like Bell Labs.

      They're creating one of the planet's most powerful computer science think tanks - and they're making tons of money doing it which means they ought to be around for a while.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    In L&S's "Anatomy of a search engine article" they wrote:

    In order to scale to hundreds of millions of web pages, Google has a fast distributed crawling system. A single URLserver serves lists of URLs to a number of crawlers (we typically ran about 3). Both the URLserver and the crawlers are implemented in Python

    http://www-db.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html [stanford.edu]

    A way of returning a favor, perhaps?
  • Google is powered by python so having its creator on the payroll will rock.

  • While Perl is still my sentimental favorite, I'm open-minded about programming languages, especially those that are as widely used as Python. I've never been able to really understand Python, though, because of its bizarre syntax. (insert Perl syntax joke here) It's always seemed easier to just do what I need to do in Perl, since I know it so well.

    If I'm reasonably proficient in Perl, what would I gain by using Python instead? I'm not trying to troll here, I'm just wondering what I'm missing. If Google
    • by gorzek ( 647352 ) <gorzek AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday December 22, 2005 @05:19PM (#14321948) Homepage Journal
      I can't speak for anyone else, but I did make the leap from perl to Python, and have no regrets.

      I still use perl for quick-and-dirty text-processing and so forth, but Python is excellent for creating scripts you want to be able to maintain later. The syntax is sparse (compared to most other languages), so there isn't as much code to maintain. I found most of my favorite perl features were also represented (foreach, regular expressions, etc.)

      People who've never spent much time with Python will gripe about the whitespace. It was never an issue for me, and I've never had problems with it.

      If you plan to do any significant object-oriented programming, Python is very good for that. For procedural programs, the only edge it has over perl is readability, due to the concise syntax.

      One thing to keep in mind with Python, however, is that it does NOT convert between numbers and strings automatically, while perl does. It's no big deal to cast a number as a str() or cast a string as int(), but if you don't know about it beforehand, it will get you.

      From what I understand, Python is also very nice for metaprogramming, but I've never used it for that. I have used it for quick command-line utilities, GUI apps (with wxPython), and game programming. The object-oriented features are really why I prefer it over perl. They are intuitive, and you have a lot of power over how the objects behave in various circumstances.

      If you have any C# experience, I've found you can port C# code to Python with only minor (mostly cosmetic) changes. (This obviously excludes using libraries written for C#, though--I was referring to the syntax of the code itself as being easily ported.)

      Sorry if this explanation wasn't technical enough. I was just trying to lay out the general reasons I found a move from perl to Python relatively painless.
      • I switched from Java to Python. Today's hardware probably runs Python just as fast as the hardware 5 years ago ran Java. My reasons why I like like Python in decreasing order (some of them you have mentioned):

        1. OO - with classes, inheritance and other OO goodies
        2. scripted - no need to compile, easy to debug
        3. powerful native data types - dictionaries (hashes), lists and sets(new in 2.xx)
        4. simple syntax (indentation => code blocks) - a blessing in disguise, I can read anybody's Python program - the f

    • ### If I'm reasonably proficient in Perl, what would I gain by using Python instead?

      I would suggest you give Ruby a try instead, it mixes pretty much the best of both Python and Perl. Meaning it has nice looking regex, a 'normal' non indention based syntax and plenty of other stuff.
  • by killmenow ( 184444 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @05:05PM (#14321792)
    google.py: import Guido
  • Dynamic Typing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kevin_conaway ( 585204 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @05:06PM (#14321818) Homepage
    Let me first say that I love Python. I find that dynamic typing makes it easier as a developer and saves time. However, on projects where there are multiple developers and maintainers, is dynamic typing a hindrance? I suppose it comes down to if you document thoroughly what comes in and out of a function/class. Anyone have any thoughts on this? I'm curious
    • Re:Dynamic Typing (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mad.frog ( 525085 )
      However, on projects where there are multiple developers and maintainers, is dynamic typing a hindrance?

      In my experience (with JavaScript/ActionScript, not Python): yes. Your mileage may vary.

      I suppose it comes down to if you document thoroughly what comes in and out of a function/class. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

      Hey, I've got an idea! We could have the compiler actually check to ensure that the documentation for argument types is present.

      And for bonus points, it could also check to make sure that th
      • Thanks to the responders who corrected me... my brain thought "static" and my fingers typed "strong". (I think my brain is nearly done for the year...)
    • You unit test (and functional test) everything heavily. That is all.
    • Re:Dynamic Typing (Score:3, Insightful)

      by m50d ( 797211 )
      You have to document the function arguments. Static typing doesn't change that, it just hides some of the most immediate problems from not doing so. (An int still needs documentation saying what values it can have). I feel dynamic typing is such a timesaver and improves flexibility so much that its benefits outweigh the costs. But whatever works for you.
  • I think that people immediately assume because he goes Google, that means Google as a whole is somehow going to revolutionize all the ways it does things to the 'Python' way (whatever that is). That is hardly going to be the case. He is just one man, who can, if they give him enough authority, make some significant contributions, but Google is already deep into its "ways" and it's difficult in terms of "quick overhauls" to do much of anything in terms of change.

    It might be nice to see some of the Guido pyth [python.org]

  • by abes ( 82351 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @05:29PM (#14322058) Homepage
    Perhaps the parallels between Google and Netscape are as close as some speculated. Could Google be trying to write their own 'OS'? I doubt very much that they actually want to write an entire OS, but I suspect they do want to be able to provide internet-applications, as they have already started on this endevaour (toolbar, and Google Earth). What do they need to do this? Servers to provide content (check), a multi-platform GUI (Firefox toolkit?, Opera?), and a language to bind them together (Python?).

    AJAX is working for Google fairly well right now, but it's probably not an end-all answer. Javascript is fine for writing small apps, but it's not that great of a language. And even with the distance diminishing between browsers, it's still a pain to write cross-browser code. One of the great accomplishments I've seen of javascript (besides maps.google) is the FCK editor [fckeditor.net], but even that can be slow, and takes large amounts of memory.

    Looking ahead, I suspect Google knows that Javascript will eventually have to dumped. M$ already has an answer, .net. They have their browser, and they can afford not to have to worry about being cross-platform.

    In the end, the web browser is not a great for doing things besides browsing the web. On top of that, with EOLAs legal suit against embedded applications, full fledged internet apps seem to be the only way to go. If Google is to survive, they need the tools and framework in order to deploy such apps.

  • The Zen of Python (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    For the curious......

    The Zen of Python (by Tim Peters)

    Beautiful is better than ugly.
    Explicit is better than implicit.
    Simple is better than complex.
    Complex is better than complicated.
    Flat is better than nested.
    Sparse is better than dense.
    Readability counts.
    Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
    Although practicality beats purity.
    Errors should never pass silently.
    Unless explicitly silenced.
    In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
    There should be one-- and preferably only one --
  • Now they just need Gigli.
  • by Skiron ( 735617 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @06:03PM (#14322431) Homepage
    'Flying chairs', coded by Steve 'monkey' Balmer.
  • by BigZaphod ( 12942 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @06:09PM (#14322487) Homepage
    Step 1) Develop [bigzaphod.org] several [bigzaphod.org] important [bigzaphod.org] and useful [bigzaphod.org] programming languages.
    Step 2) ????
    Step 3) Profit!

    Unfortunately I think my languages are just too powerful for Google, really. I'm not sure they can handle them. That must be why they haven't called me yet...

  • by Xthlc ( 20317 )
    Hmm. I'm glad Google is providing opportunities for so many worthy people. But, from what I've heard, it's an intensely secretive atmosphere with little publicizing of work outside your own group. For that matter, my impression has been that unlike most large tech companies, Google doesn't like to work with universities -- they prefer to just hire the best faculty outright rather than collaborate.

    I'm reminded of the Microsoft Research brain-drain from a few years ago, when everyone was paranoid about what M
  • by Doppler00 ( 534739 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @10:03PM (#14324003) Homepage Journal
    #google strategy
    while(stock > 400):
        for company in buyoutlist:
            company.purchase()
            spend_money()
        for phd in smart_people_list:
            phd.hire()

        release_cool_google_tool()

    (might be syntax errors in this, I work with so many languages I get confused myself)

If bankers can count, how come they have eight windows and only four tellers?

Working...