[flagged]
A History of IDEs at Google
271–280 of 333 posts
Re: A History of IDEs at Google
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the same thing with a different name and different default settings.
Consumer version: BE_EVIL=true Internal version: BE_EVIL=false
The internal version is just slightly optimized for Google's unique developer environment (auth + cloud vm + google3) and is a dogfood version, meaning we get unstable features first. It's mostly the same thing though.
Re: A History of IDEs at Google
#273From what I've heard rumor-wise, everyone has abandoned the web UI editors and are now using (or being told very loudly by management to use) Antigravity exclusively for everything.
Re: A History of IDEs at Google
#274"the advantages of having a single, extensible platform become even more obvious" -- imagine the impact that could be unlocked if we got the Android and Chromium workflows into CiderV/Critique! The article is framed around "all Googlers" but there is still a very large contingent of Googlers who cannot use these tools.
There is in fact a version of cider that does work for folks working outside of google3, such as android. It's not as seamless, but it has been getting better and tries to recreate the google3 experience.
Re: A History of IDEs at Google
#275I jumped from Google to Facebook on 2019 and while I had thought Google had best in industry developer tooling, Facebook had it better. Google’s dinky browser based Cider was cute but Facebook in its transition from Atom to VS Code was far ahead. Google might have invented asynchronous web based code review with Mondrian and Critique, but Facebook’s Diff was better with its stacked diff support. Google’s Buganizer wa…
There is enough flow of engineers between the two companies that many of the things Facebook has done better have been copied by Google. I think in many ways it goes both ways.
Re: A History of IDEs at Google
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can use jj now, thank goodness. But I still miss my old git workflows + lazygit
I’m no longer at Google and I use jj for my git repo at my current workplace. It’s great as it’s similar to hg but slightly more convenient (no need to manually `hg evolve`). It’s also great that it’s a skill that’s transferable to the world outside google3.
have you tried fossil? I really like it for personal projects
Re: A History of IDEs at Google
#277Xoogler here (2014-2017). My team (part of Ads) used primarily Java, and we used the Eclipse, then we started switching the IntelliJ. Cider was used also a lot, but I've heard even back then some folks were free to use whatever they like - vi, emacs, you name it.
Yep, I made my own! (Xoogler 2017-2023) this is my noogler IDE story, one of my favorite, proudest hacks! I developed a fork of the IntelliJ IDE on my second week at google out of raw frustration over latency. At the time I was commuting 2-3hrs/day SF MTV on the gBus. Connectivity on the bus wasn't optimal, and there was high latency. Cider didn't have deep integration, and wasn't able to let me explore and understan…
I’m surprised you find ssh+vi having medium typing latency. I have ssh’ed to either my desktop to (later) my cloudtop and latency has always been great. The ssh latency is good enough that I can run X forwarding to launch graphical instances of emacs and gvim. The latency was basically unnoticeable.
Later I rented a vacation home in South Lake Tahoe and worked remotely. It was only then that I realized it had terrible latency.
Re: A History of IDEs at Google
#278[flagged]
Re: A History of IDEs at Google
#279Re: A History of IDEs at Google
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point on the acquisitions was that a surprising amount of their successful software was not made in house. Again, I don't mean it as a knock against them, necessarily. AI is an odd example. For one, a lot of the research there is from acquisitions. Somewhat feeding back to my first point. They also were seen as tripping up on a lot of the current AI race, no?
Referring to DeepMind in the UK? Ah yes, that’s definitely through acquisition. But even though their AI models aren’t the absolute leaders in every field, all their models are near the top, across the board. Yeah, their recognition of this current dominant trend before any other major company has given them a big advantage in the number of fields they’ve applied AI to. For example, by putting their full weight behin…
Similarly, I'm not trying to be overly damning. And again, I don't think what they are doing is necessarily a bad strategy. I just don't think of them when I think of good software practices, sadly. If anything, I think the opposite. In that there are few things more unstable than trying to take on a dependency of something they have done.
Do they largely make this work for them internally? Seems so, yes. But taking on any sort of dependency to Google is something you can only do if you can keep up with their very large developer base.