28 ms·

> There are companies with data needs, user counts, and codebase sizes on par with Google that don't practice Google-style process, yet succeed anyway. Which?

> There are companies with data needs, user counts, and codebase sizes on par with Google that don't practice Google-style process, yet succeed anyway. Which? The ones I can think of are Apple and Microsoft, and I'm pretty sure they practice Google-style process. Amazon has its own flavour of process which is heavyweight in its own way. What are you thinking of? > Code-level concerns. You're not going to stop SQL injection by looking at some high-level design document. The same goes for r2l text layout bugs. I notice you left out PII and other security implication, as well as design fit and finish. Those can easily be caught at design time, especially I18n bugs. For instance, the average east asian phrase is shorter (graphically) than the same phrase in a western language, and that all has to be translated and dealt with. > It's easy to say that Google's codebase represents 18 years of work. I strongly suspect that it wouldn't take so long to do starting today That's a strawman argument. Google has written reams of code for distributed computing (Borg), continuous integration (Tap + Blaze + Forge), code review tools (Mondrian, Critique). That's like saying that although it took a decade to design the Boeing 737 (just a pretend example), it would take less time now. That is correct, but based on advancements on technology and materials, what's your point? > Look at self-driving cars: how long has Google been working on them? How long has Uber? Whose cars are serving real-world passengers today? That's a false comparison. Right now, Uber still has to have drivers behind the wheel, whereas Google self-driving cars strive for a higher level of autonomy. Also, Google has not wanted to get into a directly customer facing role, instead looking for partners to manufacture the cars. > These things were unavailable (at least at adequate quality levels) when Google started its design culture. Design culture evolves. Google wrote all of its own integration systems, code review tools, and many static analysis tools. Even though they have top class systems, they still stick to the same way of doing things. That's evidence that it works, and the process is roughly where it needs to be. > When you see that a startup (or even another > $1 billion company) can do the same damn thing Google does What's an example? Most startups/competitors to Google seems to do about 90% of the things that Google does for one business division, leaving aside the last 10%, which is naturally the hardest 10% to do. > If developers feel like process is slowing them down, maybe you should listen to them. Which developers? People looking in from the outside or actual Google engineers? > It's easy to look at a few failures and conclude that you need to add process to fix whatever went wrong. Interesting study on checklists. http://www.nature.com/news/hospital-checklists-are-meant-to-save-lives-so-why-do-they-often-fail-1.18057 http://www.nature.com/news/hospital-checklists-are-meant-to-... If you have institutional resistance towards checklists in hospitals (or process), introducing them doesn't help. But if you actually implement them correctly, they do eliminate many common mistakes. A lot of companies use cargo-cult like process, thinking if they follow a magical recipe, they automatically get good results. I doubt Google is one of them

fdsfsaa 10y ago
It's funny that you mention Microsoft. A friend (he has ~100 reports, transitively) at Microsoft tells me that at least on his team, the old-fashioned three-specification (design, dev, test) document triplet, each with a multi-page checklist-laden Word template, has been supplanted by a lightweight scheme that boils down to one or two paragraphs. That's real progress. Microsoft even runs successful open source projects these days and takes external contributions. Microsoft has not collapsed. In fact, it's doing better than ever. If Microsoft of all companies can reform itself, so can Google. > PII and other security implication When your developers are both smart and invested in the product's success, they learn about these things on their own. Sure, they can make mistakes, but so can some damned review committee. It's interesting to see how people rise to challenges. If there's a security committee tasked with reviewing the security implications of various changes, developers won't take security as seriously. "That's the security committee's job", they might think. But if you entrust developers with their own security, and they're high quality developers, they'll take the responsibility seriously and do a better job. (I know I'm making a "no true Scotsman" argument, but I think there's a real qualitative difference between developers you can trust with this sort of responsibility and developers who aren't as invested.) I don't think you can look at security/PII/whatever problems that a committee catches and conclude that those problems would have made it to production absent the committee. > That is correct, but based on advancements on technology and materials, what's your point? The Brooklyn Bridge was designed to be six times stronger than it needed to be for its design load. Modern bridges are only about two times stronger than they need to be. The Brooklyn Bridge needed its large safety factor because suspension bridges were not well understood at the time. With modern technology and design tools, we don't need to pay for a safety factor of six. Imposing Google-style process in 2016 is like building every modern suspension bridges like the Brooklyn Bridge because the Brooklyn Bridge is still standing. "That's evidence that it works, and the process is roughly where it needs to be." > For instance, the average east asian phrase is shorter (graphically) than the same phrase in a western language, and that all has to be translated and dealt with. Pseudolocalization and dogfooding help. I'd argue that rapid iteration helps most on UIs. A/B testing and metrics beat heavyweight up-front design any day of the week. > Design culture evolves. Google wrote all of its own integration systems, code review tools, and many static analysis tools. Even though they have top class systems, they still stick to the same way of doing things. That's evidence that it works, and the process is roughly where it needs to be. There's an ever-increasing morale cost. How do you expect developers who have experience in process-light environments to come to Google and be happy? "Yes", nobody says, "I want to go from experimenting rapidly on my ideas to writing internal documents to convince people to maybe let me try something." > If you actually implement [checklists] correctly, they do eliminate many common mistakes. It's a lot easier to back out a problem diff than to remove the staph you accidentally introduced into a patient's bloodstream. Process should be proportional to the difficulty of undoing a mistake. If a mistake is easy to undo, it should be easy to do. If a mistake is very costly to undo, it's worth investing in not making the mistake in the first place. The vast majority of programming errors are of the "easy to undo" variety. And by the way: > [Uber's self-driving cars is] a false comparison. Right now, Uber still has to have drivers behind the wheel, whereas Google self-driving cars strive for a higher level of autonomy. Also, Google has not wanted to get into a directly customer facing role, instead looking for partners to manufacture the cars. Uber recently delivered beer fully autonomously. In a truck. They're definitely planning for L5 autonomy.

fdsfsaa 10y ago

It's funny that you mention Microsoft. A friend (he has ~100 reports, transitively) at Microsoft tells me that at least on his team, the old-fashioned three-specification (design, dev, test) document triplet, each with a multi-page checklist-laden Word template, has been supplanted by a lightweight scheme that boils down to one or two paragraphs. That's real progress. Microsoft even runs successful open source projects these days and takes external contributions. Microsoft has not collapsed. In fact, it's doing better than ever. If Microsoft of all companies can reform itself, so can Google. > PII and other security implication When your developers are both smart and invested in the product's success, they learn about these things on their own. Sure, they can make mistakes, but so can some damned review committee. It's interesting to see how people rise to challenges. If there's a security committee tasked with reviewing the security implications of various changes, developers won't take security as seriously. "That's the security committee's job", they might think. But if you entrust developers with their own security, and they're high quality developers, they'll take the responsibility seriously and do a better job. (I know I'm making a "no true Scotsman" argument, but I think there's a real qualitative difference between developers you can trust with this sort of responsibility and developers who aren't as invested.) I don't think you can look at security/PII/whatever problems that a committee catches and conclude that those problems would have made it to production absent the committee. > That is correct, but based on advancements on technology and materials, what's your point? The Brooklyn Bridge was designed to be six times stronger than it needed to be for its design load. Modern bridges are only about two times stronger than they need to be. The Brooklyn Bridge needed its large safety factor because suspension bridges were not well understood at the time. With modern technology and design tools, we don't need to pay for a safety factor of six. Imposing Google-style process in 2016 is like building every modern suspension bridges like the Brooklyn Bridge because the Brooklyn Bridge is still standing. "That's evidence that it works, and the process is roughly where it needs to be." > For instance, the average east asian phrase is shorter (graphically) than the same phrase in a western language, and that all has to be translated and dealt with. Pseudolocalization and dogfooding help. I'd argue that rapid iteration helps most on UIs. A/B testing and metrics beat heavyweight up-front design any day of the week. > Design culture evolves. Google wrote all of its own integration systems, code review tools, and many static analysis tools. Even though they have top class systems, they still stick to the same way of doing things. That's evidence that it works, and the process is roughly where it needs to be. There's an ever-increasing morale cost. How do you expect developers who have experience in process-light environments to come to Google and be happy? "Yes", nobody says, "I want to go from experimenting rapidly on my ideas to writing internal documents to convince people to maybe let me try something." > If you actually implement [checklists] correctly, they do eliminate many common mistakes. It's a lot easier to back out a problem diff than to remove the staph you accidentally introduced into a patient's bloodstream. Process should be proportional to the difficulty of undoing a mistake. If a mistake is easy to undo, it should be easy to do. If a mistake is very costly to undo, it's worth investing in not making the mistake in the first place. The vast majority of programming errors are of the "easy to undo" variety. And by the way: > [Uber's self-driving cars is] a false comparison. Right now, Uber still has to have drivers behind the wheel, whereas Google self-driving cars strive for a higher level of autonomy. Also, Google has not wanted to get into a directly customer facing role, instead looking for partners to manufacture the cars. Uber recently delivered beer fully autonomously. In a truck. They're definitely planning for L5 autonomy.