I still go back and forth on whether google test and mock are worth it.
Google benchmark is also nice.
honestly if you write C++ for work, there's no excuse for your company to not give you the beefiest dev machine that money can reasonably buy. given that rust exists, I think "get a faster computer" is a totally valid answer to build times, especially now that skylake malaise era is over and CPUs are getting faster
I find this amusing because one of the main reasons i avoid Rust (in the sense that i prefer to build things written in other languages if possible - i don't mind if someone else uses it and gives me a binary/library i can use - and it never went beyond "i might check this at some point, sometime, maybe" in my mind) is the build times compared to most other compilers :-P.
Also, at least personally, if i get a faster computer i want my workflow to be faster.
I've given up on mock frameworks. They make it too easy to make an interface for everything and then test that you are calling functions with the expected parameters instead of the program works as you want. A slight change to how I call some function results in 1000 failed tests and yet I'm confident that I didn't break anything the user could notice (sometimes I'm wrong in this confidence - but none of the failing tests give me any clue that I'm wrong!)
Especially if you have a build process that always runs your unit tests, it's nice to have a very fast test/compile/debug loop.
Also, IMO, both doctest and catch2 are far superior to Google Test.
I feel like you could make a madlib where you could plug in any two project names and this sentence would make sense.
1) Databases and other persistent storage. Though in this case, the best mock for a database is generally another (smaller, easily snapshottable) database, not something like googlemock.
2) Network and other places where the hardware really matters. Sometimes, I really want to drop a particular message, to exercise some property of the sender. This is often possible to code around in greenfield projects, but in existing code it can be much simpler to just mock the network out.
3) Cases where I am calling out to some external black-box. Sometimes it's impractical to replicate the entire black-box in my test. This could be e.g. because it is a piece of specialized hardware, or it's non-deterministic in a way that I'd prefer my test not to be. I don't want to actually call out to an external black-box (hygiene), so some kind of a mock is more or less necessary.
Mocks have their place. A prototypical example is at user-visible endpoints (eg: a mock client).
I'm not arguing that mocks don't have their place. However I have found that by declaring I won't use them at all I overall come up with better solutions and thus better tests.
If a team of people who have been SWEs for decades reports that something helped their team, and you try it and it doesn't work, and you have been SWEs for decades, that doesn't automatically mean they are charlatans selling nonsense. They might all be basketball players playing together for 5 years and you might be a team of a baseball player, a racecar driver, a track and field athlete, and a water polo player, trying to play basketball from only reading about it, with nobody who has done it or experienced it, and several people who quietly don't want to be playing it and are just nodding along while hoping it fails. The conclusion that they are liars and it can't possibly work is not a strong conclusion.
That makes sense internally for Google because they have their massive monorepo, but it sure as hell makes it a pain in the ass to adopt for everyone else.
Google open source libraries are often a mess when you try to include more than one of them in the same project, but googletest isn't an example of the mess. It's actually pretty straightforward.
Completely agree. In isolation all of their libs are great, but inevitably I end up having to build Abseil from source, to then build Protobuf off of that, to then build gRPC off of that. If I can include the sanitizers under Google then that also becomes painful because Abseil (at least) will have ABI issues if it isn't built appropriately. Thinking about it I'd really just like a flat_hash_map replacement so I can drop Abseil.
boost has a flat_hash_map implementation for quite a few versions now, which from what I could see generally beat or is competitive with the absl implementation: https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/yikfi4/boost_181_will_...
I was curious what exactly differentiates boost::unordered_flat_map from absl::flat_hash_map, and was not disappointed. It seems that the lion's share of the performance improvement comes from using more of the metadata for the reduced hash value, although there are a few other contributing factors.
The blog post further describes where absl::flat_hash_map performs better: iteration (and consequently erasure), which is ironic given those are a couple of areas where I always felt that absl::flat_hash_map was especially weak. But, it makes sense to double down on Abseil's strengths as well as its shortcomings.
https://bannalia.blogspot.com/2022/11/inside-boostunorderedf...
https://github.com/boostorg/boost_unordered_benchmarks/tree/...
I especially like how you can see the load factor across the graphs, where there are sharp downward spikes each time the map resizes, and how they vary as you move through the memory hierarchy.
I am curious what Abseil could learn from other modern hash map implementations, since my understanding is that the fundamental structure of its swisstables implementation hasn't changed meaningfully since 2017.
Looking at the build configuration code:
https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/main/CMakeLists.tx...
it seems like the dependence on Abseil is optional. i.e. you can use googltest on its own. I wouldn't recommend it (I kinda like doctest), but still.
Nix build is still stuck in the one from 3-4 y back because bazel doesn't play well. Debian too has some issues building the thing...
Otherwise I agree, because if you must be careful, you might as well use tooling that's built for such care. But if you're doing that, do you need the Dockerfile? And that's how you end up with nix/guix.
For the humans, we can render the hashes as something friendly, but there's no reason to confuse the machines with our human notions of friendliness.
It's not like python will let you:
import nix.numpy-hsbdjd...8r5z2 as np
For that to work you'd have to change nix such that the hash did not digest parameters like `amd64-linux` witch indicated the system architecture (those being satisfied at import time).
It's python packaging and the way the only really supported binary distribution method of Tensorflow for many many years was to use Pip and hope it doesn't crash. And it's reflected in how the TF build scripts only support building python lib as artefact, everything else at the very least involved dissecting bazel intermediate targets
Here is a concrete reason why Google open source sucks when it comes to contributions and I don't think it can be improved unless Google changes things drastically: (1) an external contributor makes a nice change and a PR on GitHub; (2) the change breaks internal use cases and their tests; (3) the team is unwilling to fix the PR or port the internal test (which may be a test several layers down the dependency tree) to open source.
> making it easy for you to use the projects
Google internally use Blaze, a version of Bazel. It's so ridiculously easy for one team to use another team's project that even just thinking about what the rest of us needs to do to use another project is unloved dreadful work. So people don't make that effort.
I do not see either of these two points changing. Sure there are individuals at Google that really care about open source community, but most don't, and so their project is forever a cathedral not a bazaar.
In the case of KHTML, they never used it in the first place, so it seems like a particularly inappropriate example. I assume you actually meant Webkit? In that case, they spent half a decade and thousands of engineer-years contributing to Webkit, so it doesn't fit the original complaint about not "trying to contribute" either.
November 4, 1998; 26 years ago (KHTML released)
June 7, 2005; 19 years ago (WebKit sourced)
* (C) 1999-2003 Lars Knoll ([email protected])
* (C) 2002-2003 Dirk Mueller ([email protected])
* Copyright (C) 2002, 2006, 2008, 2012 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.
* Copyright (C) 2006 Samuel Weinig ([email protected])
AFAIK Google did not take ownership of gcc, nor did they try to fork it without contributing to the original. They used GCC for a good couple of decades while contributing to it, but eventually switched to a different compiler. The same for clang, they neither "took it over" nor "forked it without trying to contribute".
That's... not even close to what happened?
Historically, LLVM was at one point proposed by Chris Lattner, while he was at Apple, to be upstreamed into GCC (and relicensed to GPL, natch) for use as at the LTO optimization phase, which was declined. For most of its early existence, it used llvm-gcc as the frontend to generate LLVM IR. In the late '00s, serious effort was put into making a new frontend for LLVM IR which we know as clang, primarily by Apple at that point, which become self-hosting in 2009 or 2010. Basically the moment clang becomes self-hosting, everyone jumps ship from using llvm-gcc to using clang to make LLVM IR.
Google shows up around this time, I think primarily motivated by the possibility that Clang offered for mass rewriting capabilities, since it has extraordinarily good location tracking (compared to the other compilers available), which is necessary for good rewriting tools. The other major area of Google's focus at this time is actually MSVC compatibility, and I distinctly remember Chandler talking in one of his presentations that you need to be able to compile code to trust it well enough to rewrite your code, so I think the compatibility story here was mostly (again) for rewriting.
Also around this time, gcc gains proper plugin support, and llvm-gcc is reworked into dragonegg to take advantage of the proper plugin support. But because clang now exists, dragonegg is no longer very interesting, with almost all the residual attempts to use dragonegg essentially being limited to people trying to use it to get LLVM IR out of gfortran, as LLVM had no fully-working Fortran compiler at that point.
Ars is controversial on YC news. Who knew?
I don't see a problem here. Why should google have to deal with the opinions of a maintainer if they can just maintain their own version. Yeah obviously it would be nice if they'd contribute their changes back to the upstream repo but from a business perspective it's often not worth it.
At my company the inverse of this problem happened way more often: We find a problem but the maintainer just doesn't care. For example the backward-cpp library is a good example where the maintainer just isn't that active in the issues. Why wait for him to respond if you can just fork it and keep on moving.
Personally, I take the cathedral/bazaar distinction to indicate different development cadences and philosophies, rather than whether contributions are allowed/encouraged.
Various cathedral-style projects (eg: FreeBSD, Emacs) still actively take contributions and encourage involvement.
There's something even further along the spectrum that's "we provide dumps of source code, but don't really want your patches." I'm not sure what the best term is for that, but "source [merely] available" sometimes has that connotation.
In fact "source available" usually means you can see the source code, but there are severe restrictions on the source, such as no permission to modify the source even for your own use, or no permission to create forks of the project containing the modifications, or severe restrictions on such modifications. An example is MongoDB's Server Side Public License, which is source-available but not open source.
And when they don't when talking about source code, they are wrong. If someone says that an RJ45 cable is "a piece of software" because it's "soft" (you can bend it), would you say it's just a different perspective?
Open source, in the context of software, has a particular meaning. And it is the case that many software developers don't know it, so it's worth teaching them.
I agree that the OSI meaning is worth teaching. But perhaps not by saying "you're wrong; there is only one right way." Perhaps more like "some people attach XYZ specific meaning to that phrase, please be aware of it. Also, here is some history of the term if you like."
----
Aside: On re-reading this, I wonder if it comes across as testy... I think I am just channeling my annoyance with the language police of the world, in general, who sour people's interest in topics with their gatekeeping behavior. I don't mean it too personally towards you (:
> One could ask whether Google works ‘open source’ or more ‘source available’; the source is there but you cannot contribute, if you can build it at all
The author of this comment says "if you can't contribute, shouldn't you consider it `source available` instead of `open source`?".
There is only one valid answer: "No, you should not. It is still open source even if you cannot contribute". The context is clear, we are talking about "open source" vs "source available", which are both very specific in this context.
> I think I am just channeling my annoyance with the language police of the world, in general, who sour people's interest in topics with their gatekeeping behavior. I don't mean it too personally towards you (:
No offense taken, and I don't mean it personally either =). My point is just that in this context, the author of the comment was pretty clearly talking (asking, even?) about the difference between "open source" and "source available".
I don't even think it's shutting down the author: there was no other point than this, so the "thread" started by this author was purely about the meaning of those words.
Inevitably, a laser-minded person talks with a sloshy-bucket person and misunderstandings ensue.
In sloshy-bucket land, I think "open source" has various connotations — a sense of community, encouraged contribution, being able to build it yourself, improve it yourself, etc.
And I think the commenter, in broad strokes, was saying that Google is not upholding those various virtues that are often associated with "open source," so felt the term was not a good (sloshy) fit.
In particular, I do not think they were asking the question you say they were asking.
In this space, it seems like there are both too many terms (so people rather just pick a popular one and over-apply it) and too few (so you can never find one that quite says what you want). Such is life, I guess. Maybe "open sourcey" would be good, to indicate it's talking about a hand-wavy vague "ness" rather than a particular nailed-down definition. "Google isn't being very open sourcey"? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Anyway, all this to say: in the ethos of trying to take a charitable interpretation of people's words, I think it's good to consider the bucket-of-paint possibility, before jumping to corrections and yes/no determinations.
----
Edit: It occurs to me that originally I misinterpreted you as being persnickety, when perhaps you were just trying to answer the question you felt they had asked. Sorry!
> And I think the commenter, in broad strokes, was saying that Google is not upholding those various virtues that are often associated with "open source," so felt the term was not a good (sloshy) fit.
Totally valid! And I like the idea of considering the "bucket-of-paint" possibility before saying "no you're wrong". But on the other hand, sometimes it's worth agreeing on the meaning of words while discussing something.
I feel like I actually happen to regularly be on the bucket-of-paint side. I will often simplify the part of the discussion that I feel is not relevant by saying e.g. "okay this solution is bad, so if we look into this other solution we have to think about ...". And sometimes people really care about starting a discussion saying "by saying it's bad, you make it sound like whoever would think about it is stupid, and that's extreme. This solution is not necessarily bad, because in some situations it may work even though it is suboptimal". To which I tend to say "sure, I said it was bad as a way of saying that we seemed to agree that we would focus on the other one".
Until this point it's perfectly fine for me. What frustrates me is when the discussion continues in what I feel sounds like, e.g. "no, I think that your saying it is bad reflects that you disrespect whoever would think about it, and you should never have used that word in the first place. I am not sure I can ever have a meaningful discussion with you now that you used this word in this sentence, even if you later admitted that it was an oversimplification".
Anyway, communication is hard :-)
You could also build and run it using completely standard tools; you didn’t need to download random internal source control software etc. like you do for e.g. Chromium.
I assume there is little will internally because everyone there is so focused on their performance reviews and helping external people using google open source projects is not tracked by that.
React must've been destined to be open source from the get go: gotta create a mountain of js to hide in so the users can't strip out the malicious parts. Kubernetes on the other hand could've been internal forever and still would've made sense. It just happened to later make sense to open source it (it feels lopsided to me, like they kept certain parts secret. It wouldn't feel that way if they had planned it as OSS from the get go).
I spilled my coffee, I was just talking the other day to some coworkers how I don't trust google open source. Sure they open their code but they don't give a damn about contributions or making it easy for you to use the projects. I feel a lot of this sentiment extends to GCP as well.
So many google projects are better than your average community one, but they never gain traction outside of google because it is just too damn hard to use them outside of google infra.
The only Google project that seems to evade this rule that I know of is Go.