6 ms·

Google3 codebase. It's just so vast and it works. It's a miracle. I feel lucky to have seen it. Everytime you change it, it reruns the dependencies. Everyone ha

Google3 codebase. It's just so vast and it works. It's a miracle. I feel lucky to have seen it. Everytime you change it, it reruns the dependencies. Everyone has different view concurrently. Commits are efficient immutable snapshots. It's just incredible multiplayer. So massively beyond what can be done with GitHub. Really I feel it's peak codebase. I've not seen what the other big techs do but it blew my mind

asymmetric 2y ago
What is Google3?
- kqr 2y ago
  I would assume Google's monorepo.
  - Daub 2y ago
    This link might help... https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2854146 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2854146 The linked pdf has lots of details.
    - erikpukinskis 2y ago
      HTML version in case anyone prefers that to PDF: https://cacm.acm.org/research/why-google-stores-billions-of-lines-of-code-in-a-single-repository/ https://cacm.acm.org/research/why-google-stores-billions-of-...
- bushbaba 2y ago
  The replacement of google2
arcade79 2y ago
It was wonderful to work with. :-) It's one of the things I truly miss from Google.
VirusNewbie 2y ago
Google3 codebase very consistently has clean code, but some of the architecture there is very much not great. Some is great, some not so much. Some of Verizon's code was much more elegant (though much smaller scope) from an API perspective, and really leaned into advanced type systems in a way Google has not.
dilippkumar 2y ago
+1 I can not understate how much I agree with parent comment. The opposite of move fast, build a shitty prototype and iterate is a deliberate problem solving approach undertaken by the highest caliber of engineers. The actual challenges to be addressed are effectively addressed right at the design stage. The result is a thing of immense beauty and elegance. I will forever be grateful for the opportunity I had to see this magnificent piece of engineering in action.
- robertsdionne 2y ago
  Cannot overstate.
  - musiciangames 2y ago
    (Aside). To expand slightly, what robertsdionne is highlighting is the changing usage of this expression. In its original sense, e.g an issue is so important that it is impossible to overstate its importance. It is now increasingly used the other way around. Old me would have said it’s used wrongly, but this happens all the time with language. Especially things being used in the opposite of their original sense, e.g. inflammable for flammable.
    - smcameron 2y ago
      In my mind, "cannot overstate" always meant "impossible to overstate", but I think some people interpret/intend "cannot understate" to mean something like "must not understate". I don't know if that's really what they're thinking, but it is how I make sense of it. I have come to just avoid such constructions. Edit: reminds me of an ancient SNL skit with Ed Asner in which he's a retiring nuclear engineer and as he heads out the door he says to his incompetent co-workers "Just remember, you can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor".
    - deanishe 2y ago
      > opposite of their original sense, e.g. inflammable for flammable Inflammable was never the opposite of flammable. Those word have always been synonyms. The opposite was always non-flammable.
inoffensivename 2y ago
I honestly can't tell if this comment is sarcastic... google3 is a quagmire and it's getting worse by the day
- ignoramous 2y ago
  Well, first impressions: It is part of our human condition to long for hard lines and clear concepts. When we have them we have to either face the fact that some realities elude them, or else bind ourselves to the inadequacy of the concepts. https://fs.blog/impressions-are-schematically-determined https://fs.blog/impressions-are-schematically-determined / https://archive.is/F8uPE https://archive.is/F8uPE
- thwd 2y ago
  Agreed. Once long (10+ years) ago, google3 may have been peak codebase. Nowadays, not so much. Edit: I guess it also depends at what level of abstraction you work. High: can be easy breezy. Low: oh boy.
phreeza 2y ago
I agree but would add that within the codebase there are also vastly different experiences. The search ads serving stack for example is phenomenal, it is >10 years old, very complex and gets contributions from hundreds of engineers every week, yet it is quite easy to understand what is going on anywhere and it has great performance. But I also had to work with other code which had been through 3 rewrites, none of which had ever been totally completed, so there were overlapping paradigms everywhere and working with it was just a nightmare. Tests never caught anything leading to several post mortems.
lokar 2y ago
It was certainly great up to like 2015, perhaps later? You could spend all day finding fun code to read. I always like the main signal (eg sigsev) handler.

asymmetric 2y ago

What is Google3?

kqr 2y ago
I would assume Google's monorepo.
- Daub 2y ago
  This link might help... https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2854146 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2854146 The linked pdf has lots of details.
  - erikpukinskis 2y ago
    HTML version in case anyone prefers that to PDF: https://cacm.acm.org/research/why-google-stores-billions-of-lines-of-code-in-a-single-repository/ https://cacm.acm.org/research/why-google-stores-billions-of-...
bushbaba 2y ago
The replacement of google2

arcade79 2y ago

It was wonderful to work with. :-) It's one of the things I truly miss from Google.

VirusNewbie 2y ago

Google3 codebase very consistently has clean code, but some of the architecture there is very much not great. Some is great, some not so much. Some of Verizon's code was much more elegant (though much smaller scope) from an API perspective, and really leaned into advanced type systems in a way Google has not.

dilippkumar 2y ago

+1 I can not understate how much I agree with parent comment. The opposite of move fast, build a shitty prototype and iterate is a deliberate problem solving approach undertaken by the highest caliber of engineers. The actual challenges to be addressed are effectively addressed right at the design stage. The result is a thing of immense beauty and elegance. I will forever be grateful for the opportunity I had to see this magnificent piece of engineering in action.

robertsdionne 2y ago
Cannot overstate.
- musiciangames 2y ago
  (Aside). To expand slightly, what robertsdionne is highlighting is the changing usage of this expression. In its original sense, e.g an issue is so important that it is impossible to overstate its importance. It is now increasingly used the other way around. Old me would have said it’s used wrongly, but this happens all the time with language. Especially things being used in the opposite of their original sense, e.g. inflammable for flammable.
  - smcameron 2y ago
    In my mind, "cannot overstate" always meant "impossible to overstate", but I think some people interpret/intend "cannot understate" to mean something like "must not understate". I don't know if that's really what they're thinking, but it is how I make sense of it. I have come to just avoid such constructions. Edit: reminds me of an ancient SNL skit with Ed Asner in which he's a retiring nuclear engineer and as he heads out the door he says to his incompetent co-workers "Just remember, you can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor".
  - deanishe 2y ago
    > opposite of their original sense, e.g. inflammable for flammable Inflammable was never the opposite of flammable. Those word have always been synonyms. The opposite was always non-flammable.

inoffensivename 2y ago

I honestly can't tell if this comment is sarcastic... google3 is a quagmire and it's getting worse by the day

ignoramous 2y ago
Well, first impressions: It is part of our human condition to long for hard lines and clear concepts. When we have them we have to either face the fact that some realities elude them, or else bind ourselves to the inadequacy of the concepts. https://fs.blog/impressions-are-schematically-determined https://fs.blog/impressions-are-schematically-determined / https://archive.is/F8uPE https://archive.is/F8uPE
thwd 2y ago
Agreed. Once long (10+ years) ago, google3 may have been peak codebase. Nowadays, not so much. Edit: I guess it also depends at what level of abstraction you work. High: can be easy breezy. Low: oh boy.

phreeza 2y ago

I agree but would add that within the codebase there are also vastly different experiences. The search ads serving stack for example is phenomenal, it is >10 years old, very complex and gets contributions from hundreds of engineers every week, yet it is quite easy to understand what is going on anywhere and it has great performance. But I also had to work with other code which had been through 3 rewrites, none of which had ever been totally completed, so there were overlapping paradigms everywhere and working with it was just a nightmare. Tests never caught anything leading to several post mortems.

lokar 2y ago

It was certainly great up to like 2015, perhaps later? You could spend all day finding fun code to read. I always like the main signal (eg sigsev) handler.