4 ms·

Addy, Dominic, Eric, the Pauls, etc are (mostly) dev outreach for the Chrome team, which is why they're so well known. There are a LOT of talented frontend dev

by nevir 9y ago

Addy, Dominic, Eric, the Pauls, etc are (mostly) dev outreach for the Chrome team, which is why they're so well known. There are a LOT of talented frontend devs in Google; you just don't see them much externally. That being said, there is also a toxic stance from many Google engineers (and management) that JS is a "lesser" language, and that feeling often translates to the devs that work in it.

leeoniya 9y ago
> There are a LOT of talented frontend devs in Google...many Google engineers (and management) that JS is a "lesser" language And exactly what language do these fine folks do their frontend development in, Go, C++? Google sure spends a lot of resources on this lesser language for how few engineers want to work with it.
- nevir 9y ago
  > And exactly what language do these fine folks do their frontend development in, Go, C++? For a very long time, GWT (Java compiled to JS) was the preferred approach. Then development moved to the Closure compiler (JS following very Java-like patterns), and only very recently is ES6 style code taking off. Much of the code you see still carries the legacy of GWT/Closure (and there is so much there that porting would be an insane task). It's a slow process. But, for example, YouTube is switching over to Polymer (https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/05/a-sneak-peek-at-youtubes-new-look-and.html https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/05/a-sneak-peek-at-youtu...). > Google sure spends a lot of resources on this lesser language for how few engineers want to work with it. Google is a massive company, with many different (often conflicting) initiatives. Chrome spends a lot of effort on JavaScript; but Chrome engineers are (for the most part) not the ones that are writing Google's frontend code.
  - leeoniya 9y ago
    > For a very long time, GWT (Java compiled to JS) was the preferred approach. fine, but this is entirely irrelevant. the problem is that no one was optimizing for the deliverable (HTML, JS, CSS). the GWT folks could have easily written an excellent compiler so it didnt spew a bunch of unoptimized and bloated trash. > YouTube is switching over to Polymer which requires a massive slow polyfill in all but latest Chrome and results in a shit experience for all others (if i recall a related thread correctly [1]). [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/68vehl/youtubes_new_ui_uses_polymer/ https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/68vehl/youtubes...
    - nevir 9y ago
      > fine but this is entirely irrelevant. the problem is that no one was optimizing for the deliverable (JavaScript). the GWT folks could have easily written an excellent compiler so it didnt generate a bunch of slow trash. Compilers can only optimize so much. GWT/Closure do a very good job of it, too. https://www.peterbe.com/plog/advanced-closure-compiler-vs-uglifyjs2 https://www.peterbe.com/plog/advanced-closure-compiler-vs-ug... Much of the "slow trash" is already optimized to death - it just dies under the weight of insane complexity (e.g. features), browser support, and overly-generic (IMO) support libraries > which requires a massive slow polyfill in all but latest Chrome and results in a shit experience for all others (if i recall a related thread correctly). Tangential: I'm not sure which version of Polymer they're using - but 1.0+ removes the need for most of the polyfilling.
      - leeoniya 9y ago
        > Compilers can only optimize so much. GWT/Closure do a very good job of it, too. Closure certainly does; I use it every day. If Gmail is an example of how GWT optimizes things, then I'm afraid you're factually wrong. > Tangential: I'm not sure which version of Polymer they're using - but 1.0+ removes the need for most of the polyfilling. that thread is just 2 months old (i linked to it above)
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - bryanrasmussen 9y ago
        It's a long time ago but from what I remember of the one GWT project I did ( a pretty big one though ), there wasn't any match to window.onload event, this made various optimizations difficult to do in GWT.
nine_k 9y ago
Guys that made the Closure compiler must take JS seriously. Gmail in particular is still written using GWT, AFAIK, hence the strange HTML, etc. Its current frontend is probably an unsexy maintenance project, with little or no new development; most new features and dev efforts are likely in the "inbox" project, etc.
- nevir 9y ago
  > Guys that made the Closure compiler must take JS seriously. Indeed; Arv is a TC39 member. > Gmail in particular is still written using GWT, AFAIK, hence the strange HTML, etc. Its current frontend is probably an unsexy maintenance project, with little or no new development; most new features and dev efforts are likely in the "inbox" project, etc. IIRC, Inbox is also GWT, so that they could cross-compile for the native platforms (https://gmail.googleblog.com/2014/11/going-under-hood-of-inbox.html https://gmail.googleblog.com/2014/11/going-under-hood-of-inb...)

by nevir 9y ago

leeoniya 9y ago

> There are a LOT of talented frontend devs in Google...many Google engineers (and management) that JS is a "lesser" language And exactly what language do these fine folks do their frontend development in, Go, C++? Google sure spends a lot of resources on this lesser language for how few engineers want to work with it.

nevir 9y ago
> And exactly what language do these fine folks do their frontend development in, Go, C++? For a very long time, GWT (Java compiled to JS) was the preferred approach. Then development moved to the Closure compiler (JS following very Java-like patterns), and only very recently is ES6 style code taking off. Much of the code you see still carries the legacy of GWT/Closure (and there is so much there that porting would be an insane task). It's a slow process. But, for example, YouTube is switching over to Polymer (https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/05/a-sneak-peek-at-youtubes-new-look-and.html https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/05/a-sneak-peek-at-youtu...). > Google sure spends a lot of resources on this lesser language for how few engineers want to work with it. Google is a massive company, with many different (often conflicting) initiatives. Chrome spends a lot of effort on JavaScript; but Chrome engineers are (for the most part) not the ones that are writing Google's frontend code.
- leeoniya 9y ago
  > For a very long time, GWT (Java compiled to JS) was the preferred approach. fine, but this is entirely irrelevant. the problem is that no one was optimizing for the deliverable (HTML, JS, CSS). the GWT folks could have easily written an excellent compiler so it didnt spew a bunch of unoptimized and bloated trash. > YouTube is switching over to Polymer which requires a massive slow polyfill in all but latest Chrome and results in a shit experience for all others (if i recall a related thread correctly [1]). [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/68vehl/youtubes_new_ui_uses_polymer/ https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/68vehl/youtubes...
  - nevir 9y ago
    > fine but this is entirely irrelevant. the problem is that no one was optimizing for the deliverable (JavaScript). the GWT folks could have easily written an excellent compiler so it didnt generate a bunch of slow trash. Compilers can only optimize so much. GWT/Closure do a very good job of it, too. https://www.peterbe.com/plog/advanced-closure-compiler-vs-uglifyjs2 https://www.peterbe.com/plog/advanced-closure-compiler-vs-ug... Much of the "slow trash" is already optimized to death - it just dies under the weight of insane complexity (e.g. features), browser support, and overly-generic (IMO) support libraries > which requires a massive slow polyfill in all but latest Chrome and results in a shit experience for all others (if i recall a related thread correctly). Tangential: I'm not sure which version of Polymer they're using - but 1.0+ removes the need for most of the polyfilling.
    - leeoniya 9y ago
      > Compilers can only optimize so much. GWT/Closure do a very good job of it, too. Closure certainly does; I use it every day. If Gmail is an example of how GWT optimizes things, then I'm afraid you're factually wrong. > Tangential: I'm not sure which version of Polymer they're using - but 1.0+ removes the need for most of the polyfilling. that thread is just 2 months old (i linked to it above)
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - bryanrasmussen 9y ago
      It's a long time ago but from what I remember of the one GWT project I did ( a pretty big one though ), there wasn't any match to window.onload event, this made various optimizations difficult to do in GWT.

nine_k 9y ago

Guys that made the Closure compiler must take JS seriously. Gmail in particular is still written using GWT, AFAIK, hence the strange HTML, etc. Its current frontend is probably an unsexy maintenance project, with little or no new development; most new features and dev efforts are likely in the "inbox" project, etc.

nevir 9y ago
> Guys that made the Closure compiler must take JS seriously. Indeed; Arv is a TC39 member. > Gmail in particular is still written using GWT, AFAIK, hence the strange HTML, etc. Its current frontend is probably an unsexy maintenance project, with little or no new development; most new features and dev efforts are likely in the "inbox" project, etc. IIRC, Inbox is also GWT, so that they could cross-compile for the native platforms (https://gmail.googleblog.com/2014/11/going-under-hood-of-inbox.html https://gmail.googleblog.com/2014/11/going-under-hood-of-inb...)