4 ms·

And I take it google has done wide ranging scientific studies about the variations in coding styles and language constructs that it is a secret advantage that t

And I take it google has done wide ranging scientific studies about the variations in coding styles and language constructs that it is a secret advantage that they know how to write "readable" code? Implying they tried a bunch of diffrent ways until settling on the one true way that allows a diverse set of people with diverse experiences to read it? Ever heard of COBOL? Because readability has always been in the eye of the beholder, and codifying it makes it even worse.

compiler-guy 5y ago
I'm not a fan of readability exactly the way Google does it, but I'm pretty happy that Google insists on various aspects of it, like good identifier names. I don't know of any research off hand, but I'm pretty sure the industry consensus is that good identifier names improve the quality of the code (Go style notwithstanding.) Readability is one way to training engineers to do it.
joshuamorton 5y ago
> Because readability has always been in the eye of the beholder, and codifying it makes it even worse. This is empirically false. Consistency, even if it is unfavorable to your preferences, is superior to inconsistency. So a codified set of best practices is better than none at all. There are part of Google's style guides that I would change if I could, but I also prefer having a style guide (and one that goes beyond things that are lintable) than none at all, because consistency across the codebase means that I can usually understand code at a glance, or if not, know at a glance that something unusual is happening. (this is in fact precisely the argument in favor of autoformatters like gofmt/black/prettier, but extended to softer concepts that can't always be formatted: consistent style, even if it isn't your favorite, is superior to inconsistent style).
- StillBored 5y ago
  Consistency is what you get when you have a defined rule set programmatically enforced. If your looking for "readability" via human judgment, then you get a very different result.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    A programmatically enforced set of rules is certainly one way to get consistency, but it isn't the only way. You can achieve consistency through culture and training too, and sometimes that's the only way. Edit: you can look at Google's C-style guide for some examples, https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Structs_vs._Classes https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Structs_vs... It isn't possible to statically analyze if a class/struct is a POD or if the methods enforce invariants. But it's often very easy to do so with a human eye. And there's value in the distinction! Similarly, forcing someone to justify using a power-feature (operator overloading, templates, metaclasses, whatever) can only be done by a human. There may be cases where the power feature is warranted and the benefits outweigh the cost, but a linter can't know that. (and ultimately all of this comes back to: things look consistent, and when things are inconsistent, that's a strong signal that something unusual is happening and you should pay close attention)
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  > Consistency, even if it is unfavorable to your preferences, is superior to inconsistency. So a codified set of best practices is better than none at all. Indeed, but at what cost? Every step of added gatekeeping reduces development velocity, and Google does not have a monopoly on high scale services (cough AWS cough). In an ideal world for every full-time dev writing code, you'd have a full-time reviewer whose job it is to simply review that dev's code. But the real world has budgets and deadlines, and humans become discouraged when changes take too long to complete. So is readability worth the added gatekeeping cost is the question.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    You're ignoring the cost of unrestrained development without standards. The impression I've gotten is that a AWS papers over their lack of development gatekeeping with unreasonable oncall loads. All things considered, the "cost" of readability in terms of development velocity is fairly low. If anyone on your team has readability [in the language], they can review your code. This can be problem if only one person has it, but usually once one person gets through the process, you can get more people through fairly quickly. I'm a bit of a polyglot at Google (I have readability in C++, python, and Javascript/Typescript, and am part-way through the Go and Java processes, which covers basically every popular language at the company), and IMO, the readability process for each language has been a net positive, although it was painful for a while when I had no readability and none of my coworkers did (but there are procedures for getting around that today). For example, I "donate" my readability, and review random changes from people who don't have readability but need a quick turnaround or aren't yet working to gain readability.
    - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
      > You're ignoring the cost of unrestrained development without standards. I'm not. I'm not saying that code should be merged without any stylistic commentary; I'm simply proposing that stylistic commentary be provided by other stakeholders in the service you're contributing to, on top of whatever linter or sanitizer is being used. That is, after all, the goal of a human reviewer. To add _another_ layer of gatekeeping is what I'm questioning. > The impression I've gotten is that a AWS papers over their lack of development gatekeeping with unreasonable oncall loads. I don't agree with this perception at all. AWS spends a lot of time building frameworks and libraries which attempt to minimize human gatekeeping to only the necessary areas. So think retries, backoff, timeouts, circuit-breakers, etc. Instead of adding gatekeeping at the code level (with things like code style), instead gatekeeping is added at the architecture and operations stages, which is where most of the work of keeping a production level service up, available, and fast. Operational level gatekeeping in the bounds of a given organization is a much more neatly constrained problem than stylistic gatekeeping and this gatekeeping happens on a per-service basis rather than a per-CL/review basis. This keeps overhead a lot lower. My impression from being outside of Google (and having a Xoogler for a partner) is that Google loves bureaucracy and process, and that engineers that continue to stay at Google are fine with navigating these processes. Its answer to problems is to add more bureaucracy, another item for the checklist that a person/committee/reviewer needs to check for. That reflex is hard to shake, IMO.
iamstupidsimple 5y ago
What counts for readability is not set in stone by some language czar as the One True Way. Everyone knows the style guides can't be perfect which is why they're relatively mutable. In any case, readability will comment on stuff that cannot easily be quantified, such as when to use a certain object hierarchy or dependency injection, etc...
DannyBee 5y ago
Oh boy. So, to start, we have done scientific studies about the costs and benefits of readability (as codified circa 2018, since that was when the last study was). It was studied for multiple programming languages Google uses. It was done, at my request, by the engineering productivity research team, who are experts in this kind of research - you can find public papers they publish[1]. For background: I was the person responsible for production programming languages, and I did this precisely because i did not feel at the time there were recent good studies as to whether readability was really worth the cost. The answer is "yes, it is". There is an upfront cost, but readability has a meaningful and net positive effect on engineering velocity. It is large enough to make the cost back quite quickly. One could go down the rabbit hole of seeing whether you improve (or make worse) the numbers by changing various parts of the style guides, but like I said, what is there now, has in fact been studied scientifically. Honestly, i'm not sure why you think it wouldn't be. You come off as a little immature when you sort of just assume people have no idea what they are doing and don't think these things through. You are talking about a company with 60k+ engineers. Every hour of all-engineer time you waste is equivalent to having ~30 SWE do nothing for a year. Maybe there are companies happy to do that. I worked at IBM for a few years when i was much younger ;). All I can say is that as long as i'm involved in developer tools at Google, i'm gonna try not to waste my customers time. [1] I say this in the hopes you don't go making assumptions about whether the studies were done properly. They were properly controlled for tenure, number of reviews, change size, etc.
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  I'd love to see the research here. Because searching the software engineering Google papers from 2021-2021, the only somewhat relevant papers I found were case studies (such as [1] and [2]), which were based on Googlers' perception of their own processes. While self-perception can indeed by used to measure efficacy, there's a reason why it's used with great caution in surveys. I'll be honest, I have a hard time believing in readability myself. [1]: https://research.google/pubs/pub47025/ https://research.google/pubs/pub47025/ [2]: https://research.google/pubs/pub43835/ https://research.google/pubs/pub43835/
  - 5y ago

compiler-guy 5y ago

I'm not a fan of readability exactly the way Google does it, but I'm pretty happy that Google insists on various aspects of it, like good identifier names. I don't know of any research off hand, but I'm pretty sure the industry consensus is that good identifier names improve the quality of the code (Go style notwithstanding.) Readability is one way to training engineers to do it.

joshuamorton 5y ago

> Because readability has always been in the eye of the beholder, and codifying it makes it even worse. This is empirically false. Consistency, even if it is unfavorable to your preferences, is superior to inconsistency. So a codified set of best practices is better than none at all. There are part of Google's style guides that I would change if I could, but I also prefer having a style guide (and one that goes beyond things that are lintable) than none at all, because consistency across the codebase means that I can usually understand code at a glance, or if not, know at a glance that something unusual is happening. (this is in fact precisely the argument in favor of autoformatters like gofmt/black/prettier, but extended to softer concepts that can't always be formatted: consistent style, even if it isn't your favorite, is superior to inconsistent style).

StillBored 5y ago
Consistency is what you get when you have a defined rule set programmatically enforced. If your looking for "readability" via human judgment, then you get a very different result.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  A programmatically enforced set of rules is certainly one way to get consistency, but it isn't the only way. You can achieve consistency through culture and training too, and sometimes that's the only way. Edit: you can look at Google's C-style guide for some examples, https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Structs_vs._Classes https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Structs_vs... It isn't possible to statically analyze if a class/struct is a POD or if the methods enforce invariants. But it's often very easy to do so with a human eye. And there's value in the distinction! Similarly, forcing someone to justify using a power-feature (operator overloading, templates, metaclasses, whatever) can only be done by a human. There may be cases where the power feature is warranted and the benefits outweigh the cost, but a linter can't know that. (and ultimately all of this comes back to: things look consistent, and when things are inconsistent, that's a strong signal that something unusual is happening and you should pay close attention)
Karrot_Kream 5y ago
> Consistency, even if it is unfavorable to your preferences, is superior to inconsistency. So a codified set of best practices is better than none at all. Indeed, but at what cost? Every step of added gatekeeping reduces development velocity, and Google does not have a monopoly on high scale services (cough AWS cough). In an ideal world for every full-time dev writing code, you'd have a full-time reviewer whose job it is to simply review that dev's code. But the real world has budgets and deadlines, and humans become discouraged when changes take too long to complete. So is readability worth the added gatekeeping cost is the question.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  You're ignoring the cost of unrestrained development without standards. The impression I've gotten is that a AWS papers over their lack of development gatekeeping with unreasonable oncall loads. All things considered, the "cost" of readability in terms of development velocity is fairly low. If anyone on your team has readability [in the language], they can review your code. This can be problem if only one person has it, but usually once one person gets through the process, you can get more people through fairly quickly. I'm a bit of a polyglot at Google (I have readability in C++, python, and Javascript/Typescript, and am part-way through the Go and Java processes, which covers basically every popular language at the company), and IMO, the readability process for each language has been a net positive, although it was painful for a while when I had no readability and none of my coworkers did (but there are procedures for getting around that today). For example, I "donate" my readability, and review random changes from people who don't have readability but need a quick turnaround or aren't yet working to gain readability.
  - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
    > You're ignoring the cost of unrestrained development without standards. I'm not. I'm not saying that code should be merged without any stylistic commentary; I'm simply proposing that stylistic commentary be provided by other stakeholders in the service you're contributing to, on top of whatever linter or sanitizer is being used. That is, after all, the goal of a human reviewer. To add _another_ layer of gatekeeping is what I'm questioning. > The impression I've gotten is that a AWS papers over their lack of development gatekeeping with unreasonable oncall loads. I don't agree with this perception at all. AWS spends a lot of time building frameworks and libraries which attempt to minimize human gatekeeping to only the necessary areas. So think retries, backoff, timeouts, circuit-breakers, etc. Instead of adding gatekeeping at the code level (with things like code style), instead gatekeeping is added at the architecture and operations stages, which is where most of the work of keeping a production level service up, available, and fast. Operational level gatekeeping in the bounds of a given organization is a much more neatly constrained problem than stylistic gatekeeping and this gatekeeping happens on a per-service basis rather than a per-CL/review basis. This keeps overhead a lot lower. My impression from being outside of Google (and having a Xoogler for a partner) is that Google loves bureaucracy and process, and that engineers that continue to stay at Google are fine with navigating these processes. Its answer to problems is to add more bureaucracy, another item for the checklist that a person/committee/reviewer needs to check for. That reflex is hard to shake, IMO.

iamstupidsimple 5y ago

What counts for readability is not set in stone by some language czar as the One True Way. Everyone knows the style guides can't be perfect which is why they're relatively mutable. In any case, readability will comment on stuff that cannot easily be quantified, such as when to use a certain object hierarchy or dependency injection, etc...

DannyBee 5y ago

Oh boy. So, to start, we have done scientific studies about the costs and benefits of readability (as codified circa 2018, since that was when the last study was). It was studied for multiple programming languages Google uses. It was done, at my request, by the engineering productivity research team, who are experts in this kind of research - you can find public papers they publish[1]. For background: I was the person responsible for production programming languages, and I did this precisely because i did not feel at the time there were recent good studies as to whether readability was really worth the cost. The answer is "yes, it is". There is an upfront cost, but readability has a meaningful and net positive effect on engineering velocity. It is large enough to make the cost back quite quickly. One could go down the rabbit hole of seeing whether you improve (or make worse) the numbers by changing various parts of the style guides, but like I said, what is there now, has in fact been studied scientifically. Honestly, i'm not sure why you think it wouldn't be. You come off as a little immature when you sort of just assume people have no idea what they are doing and don't think these things through. You are talking about a company with 60k+ engineers. Every hour of all-engineer time you waste is equivalent to having ~30 SWE do nothing for a year. Maybe there are companies happy to do that. I worked at IBM for a few years when i was much younger ;). All I can say is that as long as i'm involved in developer tools at Google, i'm gonna try not to waste my customers time. [1] I say this in the hopes you don't go making assumptions about whether the studies were done properly. They were properly controlled for tenure, number of reviews, change size, etc.

Karrot_Kream 5y ago
I'd love to see the research here. Because searching the software engineering Google papers from 2021-2021, the only somewhat relevant papers I found were case studies (such as [1] and [2]), which were based on Googlers' perception of their own processes. While self-perception can indeed by used to measure efficacy, there's a reason why it's used with great caution in surveys. I'll be honest, I have a hard time believing in readability myself. [1]: https://research.google/pubs/pub47025/ https://research.google/pubs/pub47025/ [2]: https://research.google/pubs/pub43835/ https://research.google/pubs/pub43835/
- 5y ago