All you need is a tool that actually understands the language.

It's 2024 and HN still suggests using regular expressions to search through a code base.

Regex is a universal tool.

Your special tool might not work on plattform X, fails for edge case - and you generally don't know how it works. With regex or simple string search - I am in control. And can understand why results show up, or investigate when they don't, but should.

> Your special tool might not work on plattform X

As always, people come out with the weirdest of excuses to not use actual tools in the 99.9999% of the cases when they are available, and work.

When that tools doesn't work, or isn't sufficient, use another one like fuzzy text search or regexps.

> and you generally don't know how it works.

Do you know how your stove works? Or do you truly understand what the device you're typing this comment on truly works?

Only in programming I see people deliberately avoid useful tools because <some fringe edge case that comes up once in a millenium in their daily work>

if you think anything works in 99.9999% of cases, you’ve never programmed a computer

It’s you who sees it as excuses. If I have a screwdriver multitool, I don’t need another one which is for d10 only. It simply creates unnecessary clutter in a toolbox. The difference between definition and mention search for a function is:

  gr<bs><bs>ion name<cr>
  vs
  grname<cr>

or for the current identifier, simply

  gr<m-w><cr>

I could even make my own useful tools like “\[fvm]gr” for function, variable or field search and brag about it watching miserable ide guys from the high balcony, but ain’t that unnecessary as well.

> It simply creates unnecessary clutter in a toolbox.

And then you proceed to... invent several pale imitations of a symbol/usages search.

More here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41435862 so as not to repeat myself

Doesn’t really apply, ignores things just said.

When you specialize in one thing only, do what you want.

But I prefer tools, that I can use wherever I go. To not be dependant and chained to that environment.

"Do you know how your stove works? Or do you truly understand what the device you're typing this comment on truly works?"

Also yes, I do.

" people deliberately avoid useful tools because <some fringe edge case that comes up once in a millenium in their daily work>"

Well, or I did already changed tools often enough, to be fed up with it and rather invest in tech that does not loose its value in the next iteration of the innovation cycle.

> When you specialize in one thing only, do what you want.

I specialize in one thing only: programming

> But I prefer tools, that I can use wherever I go.

Do you always walk everywhere, or do you use a tool available at the time, like cars, planes, bycicles, public transport?

> rather invest in tech that does not loose its value in the next iteration of the innovation cycle.

Things like "fund symbol", "find usages", "find implementation" have been available in actual tools for close to two decades now.

I did not say I do not use what is avaiable, but this debate is about in general having your code in a shape that simply searching for strings work.

Simply searching for strings rarely works well as the codebase grows larger. Because besides knowing where all things named X are, you want to actually see where X is used, or where it's called from, or where it is defined.

With search you end up grepping the code twice:

- first grepping for the name

We're literally in a thread where people invent regexes for how to search the same thing (a function) defined in two different ways (as a function or as a const)

- secondly, manually grepping through search results deducing if it's relevant to what you're looking for

It becomes significantly worse if you want to include third-party libs in your search.

There are countless times when I would just Cmd+B/Cmd+Click a symbol in IDEA and continue my exploration down to Java's own libraries. There are next to zero cases when IDEA would fail to recognise a function and find its usages if it was defined as a const, not as a function. Why would I willingly deny myself these tools as so many in this thread do?

I both agree and disagree with this.

I was very careful about how I phrased my comment. Languages can gain points by being greppable, and they can gain points by having a well–implemented mode for my favorite editor, and they can also gain points by having a well–implemented language server. They can do all three to gain the most points (and of course there are many other ways to gain or lose points; this is just one tiny aspect of language design), but they don’t have to. And nobody should try to force every language designer to shave the yak of writing an Emacs mode or a Language Server.

And sometimes you just want to improve some random piece of software written in a language that you’ve never used before, without having to shave a bunch of yaks to get the language server installed. Sometimes all you have is grep and you’ll want to be able to use it on this weird new language.

Its current year and IDEs still can’t remember how I just transformed the snippet of code and suggest to transform the rest of the files in the same way. All they can do in “refactor” menu is only “rename” and then some extract/etc nonsense which no one uses irl.

By using regexps I have an experience that opens many doors, and the fact that they aren’t automatic could make me sad, if only these doors weren’t completely shut without that experience.

No one is stopping you from using regexps in IDEs.

And you somehow manage to undersell the rename functionality in an IDE. And I've used move/extract functionality multiple times.

I do however agree that applicable transformations (like upgrading to new syntaxes, or ways of doing stuff as languages evolve) could be applied wholesale to large chunks of code.

The thing is: In large codebase the tool may become slow or crash, in a new language you may not have such tool.. Grep is far more robust!

When tools don't work or unsuitable, you use different tools.

And yet people are obsessed with never using useful tools in the first place because they can invent scenarios when this tool doesn't work. Even if these scenarios might never actually come up in their daily work.

Not to move the goal posts too much, but when I am searching a huge Python or Java code base from IntelliJ, I use a mixture of symbol and text search. One good thing about text search, you get hits from comments.

Yup. I do, too.

I'm mostly ranting against this weird "we will never use great tools because full-text search" obsession

All you need is `<keyword> =`

Really, all you need is `<keyword>` and if the first result is a call to that function, just jump to its definition.

Exactly.

Just search the definition.

Any time that a function doesn't have a definition, it's never the target of a search anyway.