One of my worst decisions as a developer was to build upon a component framework maintained by Google.

Material Components for the web is constantly introducing breaking changes that make building upon the framework a nightmare. Lately they've even set this expectation in the project description. The problem is that the components are rather buggy, so you must regularly update them to have upstream bugs fixed.

> Material Components Web tends to release breaking changes on a monthly basis, but follows semver so you can control when you incorporate them. We typically follow a 2-week release schedule which includes one major release per month with breaking changes, and intermediate patch releases with bug fixes.

https://github.com/material-components/material-components-w...

The development team's decisions have been questionable [1][2][3], so consider this a warning in case you are tempted to use the project.

[1] https://github.com/material-components/material-components-w...

[2] https://github.com/material-components/material-components-w...

[3] https://github.com/material-components/material-components-w...

I feel like the breaking changes must be because they're used to working in a monorepo, where you can just change the code and the clients at once. No need to worry about compatibility

When someone says "ex googler" usually during the beginning of a call,I immediately multi-task, let them finish with their chest pounding and move on from them, trying to avoid them going forward. If you can't convince people with the technical merits of your plan, I guess you just try and name drop (company drop). Some people buy it, most don't and they sit in some enterprise architect role with maybe a few internal fans. If you want to waste tons of money, scale your company for billions of users when you have 2000, hell don't even scale just say you can and claim success before you even do it, it works there are tons of these guys and gals ripping apart companies for their perfect "designs" that worked at google.

(i never worked at google but did interview, argued with the interviewer and hung up, he thought computers worked differently than they do in reality and just spoke with this heir of authority, without having a spec of it )

The funny part of the story is that Angular is from Google.

It's surprising that the fact "Something that works for Google doesn't necessarily work for company X" is not common knowledge.

One of the things that amuses me most is ex-FAANG engineers who are absolutely stymied when they don't have access to the tools and support systems available at their former employers. They've never had to deal with some of the very rough systems the rest of us deal with on a daily basis just to make the business run.

Hubris runs rampant in the ex-FAANG crowd, and businesses who aren't tech companies who hire these folks do so precisely because they don't understand that what worked at ex-FAANG won't necessarily translate to their business.

There are many companies where ex Googlers have made an impact as founders or senior engineering leaders. Your anecdata has many counters.

At this point there are probably 100k ex Google employees.

It wasn't an absolutest statement but interesting that you've tried to make it so.