8 ms·

Cloud Code – A new set of plug-ins for IntelliJ and VS Code

138 points by sandGorgon 8y ago

cthalupa 8y ago
*Google Cloud Code The Kubernetes bit seems (somewhat) agnostic but it looks like a big part of this is adding integration for GCP APIs. Which is all fine. Just wish it was branded a bit more specifically.
- innerspirit 8y ago
  It's annoying that pretty much every single Google project comes with an underlying attempt at vendor lock-in.
  - gundmc 8y ago
    GCP is arguably doing the most among major cloud providers to prevent vendor lock-in and support multicloud implementations. It's really their best play to try to get some business when they're so far behind AWS and Azure in market share.
    - DelightOne 8y ago
      Hope they'll allow the same for this tool since it sounds pretty useful.
  - rooam-dev 8y ago
    So that we really feel the pain when they shut it down :)
    - 0xEFF 8y ago
      This and the parent vendor-lock in comment are so over-played out it's tiresome.
      - reificator 8y ago
        > This and the parent vendor-lock in comment are so over-played out it's tiresome. It's also tiresome that I'm losing access to my preferred music streaming platform that I pay $20/month for. No other platform lets me seamlessly put up a playlist with music from their streaming library and my own uploaded music[0]. People aren't dredging up the past here and being needlessly cynical. It continues to come up in discussions because it continues to happen. [0]: Any streaming service that doesn't let me listen to Neil Cicierega is inherently flawed.
        fjp 8y ago
        People HN act like they are entitled to a product they like existing and being supported forever.
        reificator 8y ago
        > People HN act like they are entitled to a product they like existing and being supported forever. No, people here are more predisposed to understand the business needs behind a given service. You're more likely to find people who understand why a service is being shut down here than picking out of a crowd. However, they're also apt to perform a deeper risk evaluation than the average person. And a glance at Google's track record shows that their services are pretty likely to be axed, and so should not be relied upon. It's not entitlement to be upset that a paid service is being shuttered in favor of another paid service with fewer (or at least very different) features by the same company. I'm paying for it. If it wasn't profitable, they wouldn't be actively developing a clone of their own product.
      - rooam-dev 8y ago
        You mean like this list? https://killedbygoogle.com https://killedbygoogle.com
      - debaserab2 8y ago
        Overplayed? These comments have never been more relevant.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
xd1936 8y ago
I believe this was said when the Github repository[1] was posted yesterday, but... It's pretty wild that Google's releasing a closed-source plugin for Microsoft's open-source code editor in 2019. 1. https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/cloud-code-vscode https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/cloud-code-vscode
- paxys 8y ago
  Pretty weird decision overall, considering you can always download the extension package and look at the code in there.
  - skybrian 8y ago
    It seems like a similar situation to the web. Source is not available for most of Google's websites, even though you can decompile the minimized JavaScript. Everyone understands you can't put secrets in there.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    Being able to see the source is not the same as open source. Being able to see the source doesn't mean you can fork it, resell it, or even use it without permission. Plenty of proprietary products are made in languages where the code is not compiled, such as proprietary PHP platforms. Presumably, since the plugins are free here, if Google isn't open sourcing it, they don't want other companies to lift their work and use them in competing projects. Or, just as likely, the Googler that wrote it has some bureaucratic process they didn't go through yet to open source it, and they intend to change the license later.
    - paxys 8y ago
      Open source also doesn't necessarily mean any of those things. They can make the source code public on GitHub under a proprietary license, which doesn't let anyone reuse or resell it.
    - aquova 8y ago
      I'm not too familiar with open source licenses, but does a license exist that allows someone to (enforceably) open source their code with the stipulation that it is for academic/security purposes, but forbids forking/reselling/other usage?
pbreit 8y ago
Are people still moving to Docker or is Kubernetes where things are going?
- mrweasel 8y ago
  Personally I don't really differentiate to much between the two. Customers often don't know the difference, and assume that Docker will magically scale when needed. And if you have a Kubernetes installation available, why not just run all your Docker images there. Unless you're just using Docker for the encapsulation you'll need something like Kubernetes pretty quickly.
  - jbigelow76 8y ago
    Personally I don't really differentiate to much between the two. I differentiate between is so much that as the app developer, Docker is my concern, Kubernetes is the concern of Infra/DevOps.
    - mrweasel 8y ago
      That's actually a pretty good way of looking at it. As an ops guy I don't really care that much about what the developers put into their containers, or at least I can shift a large part of my work with maintenance and patch management to the developers.
- howinator 8y ago
  In general, you run a Docker container on Kubernetes. Most people do not do Kubernetes without Docker.
  - pbalau 8y ago
    Can you do kubernetes without docker? Does it support other container engines?
    - bpicolo 8y ago
z3t4 8y ago
My which-list for G cloud: 1) Enable Websockets for the G cloud shell proxy 2) Break up and untangle the JavaScript client monolith library into small modules that can be self hosted. One module for each G cloud service. Try to limit the complexity while you're at it. 3) Make an API to make it possible to automatically manage G cloud services. For example execute commands on the G cloud shell on behalf of the user. 4) Expand the free tier so people that want to learn can try out all services without a credit card. 5) (bonus) Add a partner program so that channels can get a kickback for each user they bring to the G cloud services.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
amq 8y ago
I wish they would at least open-soure the linter. I just quickly compared it to https://github.com/garethr/kubeval https://github.com/garethr/kubeval, and it did uncover some valid additional mistakes. Upd: looks like the plugin is using https://github.com/mulesoft-labs/yaml-ast-parser https://github.com/mulesoft-labs/yaml-ast-parser combined with https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode-json-languageservice https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode-json-languageservice
- Improvotter 8y ago
  It'd be indeed nice if this was open source. Having a server yourself somewhere using a VPN that you could run some stuff on while working on a slow laptop would be nice.
ilovecaching 8y ago
Where's the Vim support? According to the most recent SO survey Vim is being used by 43% of the DevOps/SRE market, which corroborates with my experience in DevOps. DevOps is a CLI heavy job, and having an editor that can run in a terminal emulator and has maximum integration is a must.
shruubi 8y ago
As someone who uses App Engine, it'd be nice if Google would stop treating their non-java languages as second class citizens. It seems, as per usual, there is only App Engine Java support...
- tomComb 8y ago
  I think their new 'cloud run' product is supposed to be a step towards addressing that (and vendor lock-in).

138 points by sandGorgon 8y ago

*Google Cloud Code The Kubernetes bit seems (somewhat) agnostic but it looks like a big part of this is adding integration for GCP APIs. Which is all fine. Just wish it was branded a bit more specifically.

innerspirit 8y ago
It's annoying that pretty much every single Google project comes with an underlying attempt at vendor lock-in.
- gundmc 8y ago
  GCP is arguably doing the most among major cloud providers to prevent vendor lock-in and support multicloud implementations. It's really their best play to try to get some business when they're so far behind AWS and Azure in market share.
  - DelightOne 8y ago
    Hope they'll allow the same for this tool since it sounds pretty useful.
- rooam-dev 8y ago
  So that we really feel the pain when they shut it down :)
  - 0xEFF 8y ago
    This and the parent vendor-lock in comment are so over-played out it's tiresome.
    - reificator 8y ago
      > This and the parent vendor-lock in comment are so over-played out it's tiresome. It's also tiresome that I'm losing access to my preferred music streaming platform that I pay $20/month for. No other platform lets me seamlessly put up a playlist with music from their streaming library and my own uploaded music[0]. People aren't dredging up the past here and being needlessly cynical. It continues to come up in discussions because it continues to happen. [0]: Any streaming service that doesn't let me listen to Neil Cicierega is inherently flawed.
      - fjp 8y ago
        People HN act like they are entitled to a product they like existing and being supported forever.
        reificator 8y ago
        > People HN act like they are entitled to a product they like existing and being supported forever. No, people here are more predisposed to understand the business needs behind a given service. You're more likely to find people who understand why a service is being shut down here than picking out of a crowd. However, they're also apt to perform a deeper risk evaluation than the average person. And a glance at Google's track record shows that their services are pretty likely to be axed, and so should not be relied upon. It's not entitlement to be upset that a paid service is being shuttered in favor of another paid service with fewer (or at least very different) features by the same company. I'm paying for it. If it wasn't profitable, they wouldn't be actively developing a clone of their own product.
    - rooam-dev 8y ago
      You mean like this list? https://killedbygoogle.com https://killedbygoogle.com
    - debaserab2 8y ago
      Overplayed? These comments have never been more relevant.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

xd1936 8y ago

I believe this was said when the Github repository[1] was posted yesterday, but... It's pretty wild that Google's releasing a closed-source plugin for Microsoft's open-source code editor in 2019. 1. https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/cloud-code-vscode https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/cloud-code-vscode

paxys 8y ago
Pretty weird decision overall, considering you can always download the extension package and look at the code in there.
- skybrian 8y ago
  It seems like a similar situation to the web. Source is not available for most of Google's websites, even though you can decompile the minimized JavaScript. Everyone understands you can't put secrets in there.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  Being able to see the source is not the same as open source. Being able to see the source doesn't mean you can fork it, resell it, or even use it without permission. Plenty of proprietary products are made in languages where the code is not compiled, such as proprietary PHP platforms. Presumably, since the plugins are free here, if Google isn't open sourcing it, they don't want other companies to lift their work and use them in competing projects. Or, just as likely, the Googler that wrote it has some bureaucratic process they didn't go through yet to open source it, and they intend to change the license later.
  - paxys 8y ago
    Open source also doesn't necessarily mean any of those things. They can make the source code public on GitHub under a proprietary license, which doesn't let anyone reuse or resell it.
  - aquova 8y ago
    I'm not too familiar with open source licenses, but does a license exist that allows someone to (enforceably) open source their code with the stipulation that it is for academic/security purposes, but forbids forking/reselling/other usage?

pbreit 8y ago

Are people still moving to Docker or is Kubernetes where things are going?

mrweasel 8y ago
Personally I don't really differentiate to much between the two. Customers often don't know the difference, and assume that Docker will magically scale when needed. And if you have a Kubernetes installation available, why not just run all your Docker images there. Unless you're just using Docker for the encapsulation you'll need something like Kubernetes pretty quickly.
- jbigelow76 8y ago
  Personally I don't really differentiate to much between the two. I differentiate between is so much that as the app developer, Docker is my concern, Kubernetes is the concern of Infra/DevOps.
  - mrweasel 8y ago
    That's actually a pretty good way of looking at it. As an ops guy I don't really care that much about what the developers put into their containers, or at least I can shift a large part of my work with maintenance and patch management to the developers.
howinator 8y ago
In general, you run a Docker container on Kubernetes. Most people do not do Kubernetes without Docker.
- pbalau 8y ago
  Can you do kubernetes without docker? Does it support other container engines?
  - bpicolo 8y ago

z3t4 8y ago

My which-list for G cloud: 1) Enable Websockets for the G cloud shell proxy 2) Break up and untangle the JavaScript client monolith library into small modules that can be self hosted. One module for each G cloud service. Try to limit the complexity while you're at it. 3) Make an API to make it possible to automatically manage G cloud services. For example execute commands on the G cloud shell on behalf of the user. 4) Expand the free tier so people that want to learn can try out all services without a credit card. 5) (bonus) Add a partner program so that channels can get a kickback for each user they bring to the G cloud services.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

amq 8y ago

I wish they would at least open-soure the linter. I just quickly compared it to https://github.com/garethr/kubeval https://github.com/garethr/kubeval, and it did uncover some valid additional mistakes. Upd: looks like the plugin is using https://github.com/mulesoft-labs/yaml-ast-parser https://github.com/mulesoft-labs/yaml-ast-parser combined with https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode-json-languageservice https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode-json-languageservice

Improvotter 8y ago
It'd be indeed nice if this was open source. Having a server yourself somewhere using a VPN that you could run some stuff on while working on a slow laptop would be nice.

ilovecaching 8y ago

Where's the Vim support? According to the most recent SO survey Vim is being used by 43% of the DevOps/SRE market, which corroborates with my experience in DevOps. DevOps is a CLI heavy job, and having an editor that can run in a terminal emulator and has maximum integration is a must.

shruubi 8y ago

As someone who uses App Engine, it'd be nice if Google would stop treating their non-java languages as second class citizens. It seems, as per usual, there is only App Engine Java support...

tomComb 8y ago
I think their new 'cloud run' product is supposed to be a step towards addressing that (and vendor lock-in).