271–280 of 352 posts
I'm stumbling into this thread right after experiencing what appears to be a pretty catastrophic failure of Google's main product. As I write this, the search results for "Google stock" (among other queries) returns zero results ("Your search - google stock - did not match any documents"). I'm not really sure what to make out of these discussions about how X or Y Google engineering is, while the production service is…
Cool. Could someone, maybe an ex-googler, comment on which parts of these work well and which don't? A lot of other companies get into trouble trying to cargo-cult what Google does when they are operating in very different environments wherein those practices aren't optimal. E.g. different levels of scale. Additionally, critics of Google may point out that their engineering culture may not be great on its own terms -…
I would say the vast majority of it works well, some you just don't need until you hit scale (here, scale in the number of developers).
For example, policies work if you have Blaze/Bazel I miss a lot. Just wrangling the dependencies between shared packages is a mess (though we might just suck at configuring Poetry - at any rate it's not intuitive). Building and deploying is much more involved.
Another thing I miss is code review the Google way. Google asks that you review within 24 hours, reviews by (the equivalent of a) commit and not by PR, and strongly advises to keep commits small; The GitHub PR workflow is terrible in comparison:
1) it nudges you into batching commits into large PRs
2) Is the PR message informative? Is each commit's? What about squash and merge - how many people edit that message? At Google part of the code review is reviewing the commit message. When you squash and merge, that's post approval, so you can't even do that.
3) Hidden conversations? What the actual fudge
4) How many comments have I not addressed yet? For that matter, how many PRs are waiting for my attention and when were they sent?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strong disagree. In my experience, this is not commonly why competitors don't adopt Google's practices. The main reasons I've seen are: 1. Money. Google essentially has a giant, gargantuan, enormous, bottomless pit of money to build a lot of this tooling (and also to take the risk if something ends up not working out). I think you might be able to say that other companies are just being short sighted if they don't im…
Eh, money is only a factor when it comes to scale. That is, Google can afford to hire 30 engineers to support their CI infra, you can't. Everything else isn't. Unit tests aren't a luxury that Google's infinite riches allow it to have - they pay dividends whenever code exists for more than a few weeks. You can bet your ass Google engineers don't write unit tests for throwaway code. CI saves time, and while Google can…
A CI bot which waits 24 hours then says "no", with a text file that crashes your browser and ultimately only contains the information 'exit code nonzero', which fails for reasons totally unrelated to your code change is dubious as a value add system.
If that bot is also a non-negotiable gate on shipping things you get a bunch of other antipatterns, like massive code patches to decrease how often you have to roll the die and a tendency to hit retry every day or so until the probability that it's actually your patch that's broken gets high enough that you try to debug it locally, at which point you may be unable to reproduce the blocking error anyway.
The real question is whether that pathologically rubbish implementation is still better than shipping without CI, which rather depends on whether your engineers ship code that works without the guide rails, which to a fair approximation they do not.
Thus it might still be a net win for product quality but saving time is harder to see.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perf feeds into promotions, which are the real way to raise your long-term salary (both inside and outside of Google).
Perf is almost irrelevant for promotions beyond level 5.
Cool. Could someone, maybe an ex-googler, comment on which parts of these work well and which don't? A lot of other companies get into trouble trying to cargo-cult what Google does when they are operating in very different environments wherein those practices aren't optimal. E.g. different levels of scale. Additionally, critics of Google may point out that their engineering culture may not be great on its own terms -…
I left Google around six months ago. I worked in medium and small companies, currently at a startup with ~30 devs. I would say the vast majority of it works well, some you just don't need until you hit scale (here, scale in the number of developers). For example, policies work if you have Blaze/Bazel I miss a lot. Just wrangling the dependencies between shared packages is a mess (though we might just suck at configur…
I think coupling commits with review progress was a mistake.
Cool. Could someone, maybe an ex-googler, comment on which parts of these work well and which don't? A lot of other companies get into trouble trying to cargo-cult what Google does when they are operating in very different environments wherein those practices aren't optimal. E.g. different levels of scale. Additionally, critics of Google may point out that their engineering culture may not be great on its own terms -…
DISCLAIMER 1: Current Googler here, but opinions are my own. DISCLAIMER 2: I think from a hands-on-keyboard SWE there is a lot of useful stuff. What you mentioned about Google culture of killing products and such I am not gonna talk about. I recommend chapters about testing first and foremost. Among all the codebases I saw (both OS and proprietary) Google tests are the most comprehensive and reliable. However, If you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I left Google around six months ago. I worked in medium and small companies, currently at a startup with ~30 devs. I would say the vast majority of it works well, some you just don't need until you hit scale (here, scale in the number of developers). For example, policies work if you have Blaze/Bazel I miss a lot. Just wrangling the dependencies between shared packages is a mess (though we might just suck at configur…
Of all the Google dev tools, I miss Critique the most. GitHub is terrible at giving enough context to efficiently review a PR on a second or third pass. I think coupling commits with review progress was a mistake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just discussing your point #1, I hear this but what I see is that the companies I have direct experience with spend much more and move more slowly with their we-are-not-Google hacks. People move fast and break things into a corner where their entire project is a haunted graveyard with no test and no comments, that has never been reviewed, and at that point nobody is allowed to change anything.
One conspicuous omission in the ex-google is reflection on killed products like Google Wave, Plus, Glass etc etc etc .. for many of the [whatever] was the gross imbalance between Eng owning the product but ignoring the userbase. What ex-googlers often fail to grapple with is the product lifecycle (how short it may be) and the value of having diversity in the loop of product testing. Google is designed to be a safe pl…
The fact that Plus and Glass got canceled and Wallet has been canceled sixteen different times is merely a consequence of the fact that leadership and product is often led by imbeciles. That's an organizational problem and I hope nobody is out there cargo-culting Google's org (even though I know they are, with OKRs and Perf being widely copied).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strong disagree. In my experience, this is not commonly why competitors don't adopt Google's practices. The main reasons I've seen are: 1. Money. Google essentially has a giant, gargantuan, enormous, bottomless pit of money to build a lot of this tooling (and also to take the risk if something ends up not working out). I think you might be able to say that other companies are just being short sighted if they don't im…
Eh, money is only a factor when it comes to scale. That is, Google can afford to hire 30 engineers to support their CI infra, you can't. Everything else isn't. Unit tests aren't a luxury that Google's infinite riches allow it to have - they pay dividends whenever code exists for more than a few weeks. You can bet your ass Google engineers don't write unit tests for throwaway code. CI saves time, and while Google can…