It's interesting to contrast how Google and Facebook both approach open source for the web.
Google tends to release code and promote it without really using it much internally first. Documentation is prolific but confusingly organized and often fragmented among several versions simultaneously (cough, Google Analytics).
Facebook, on the other hand, actually seems to use their code before releasing and promoting it. Look at how they handled GraphQL: spec and reference implementation released a year ago, clearly labeled as a "Technology Preview". A lot of design work went into it before that, informed by the problems of internal product teams. Only a few days ago was it promoted as ready for production. The spec hardly changed it the last year. Documentation is good, and they work with the community to improve DX.
Why the difference? Hard to say, but my feeling is that there's a more direct link between Facebook's product-driven open source work and their bottom line. There are other startups constantly nipping at their heels, so they need to be on their game product-wise. Better code -> better products -> profits.
Google is largely impervious in the search and ad space, which is their cash cow. It almost doesn't matter how good or bad their other products are. The company is not at risk. Their open source work reflects that.
Google tends to release code and promote it without really using it much internally first.
According to Brad Green, the Engineering Director over Angular, Google AdWords, Google Fiber, and some internal tools are all built with NG2. AdWords is kind of big deal to Google.
Except for the tons of counterexamples at Google...
Bazel, Tensorflow, protobufs, GWT (a web/JavaScript project!), dozens of utility libraries, etc.
You are forgetting that Google is a huge company, much bigger than Facebook. It's more a collection of disparate entities than a monolithic giant. Each open source project is run differently.
Google does not actually do much with JavaScript. Sure they have gmail, but they put a lot more effort into graceful degradation than most web companies.
Google has larger and more complex JS apps than most other companies on the planet. They do a lot with Javascript besides gmail. Maps, Docs, Photos, G+, are all large Javascript applications. And those are just a few.
These are all separate applications which sit in their own silos. They are individually complicated, but they don't need to fit into some company wide framework.
I think this is an age thing. People who grew up using the web before javascript started destroying it are more likely to accept professional responsibility for progressive enhancement, and Google skews older than many competitors.
> Google tends to release code and promote it without
> really using it much internally first.
Is this actually true? My understanding (from watching many AngularJS presentations) is that Angular was developed with input from many teams at Google.
"with input" != actually using it. There are very few public-facing Google apps/sites that use Angular, whereas a large chunk of the Facebook frontend uses React and their other libraries like Relay. That said, I have no idea if/how Google uses Angular internally, so it might get more use than we see from the outside.
The company is not at risk. Their open source work reflects that.
Angular came out 2.5 years before React. Facebook had a predecessor to flesh out what does and doesn't work. Google started the autonomous car, and now other companies are following suit. Google starts the race, but they might not be in first place at the end. Ultimately, consumers win.
Better code -> better products -> profits.
What about Golang? Considering this conclusion is out of scope from the premise 'open source for the web', anyways.
Is it the documentation that is the essence of 'better code'? If not, then what? Left to my own devices, I will summon functional programming constructs such as Monads or Catamorphisms in personal projects. Keyword: personal projects. I think it's elegant, but someone unfamiliar with these constructs might abhor it. Analogously, what's the best programming language?
Do the arrows imply: if better code then better products, and if better products then more profits? If that's the logical structure, I can easily think of examples of companies enjoying great profits but bad code / bad products. Moreover, the direction of causality could also be profits -> better products -> better code. In reality, it's most likely to be a complex / dynamical relationship involving many other variables.
Google is largely impervious in the search and ad space, which is their cash cow. It almost doesn't matter how good or bad their other products are.
What other products from Facebook did you have in mind? I genuinely cannot think of anything other than the social network, Instagram, and Facebook messenger. Facebook is largely impervious in the social networking and ad space. Does it matter how good or bad their other products are?
This reminds me of the excellent episode of Changelog in which Facebook's head of open source discussed the logistics of managing React so that the public version is exactly the same as the version used by Facebook itself: https://changelog.com/211/
Really drove home the concept that open-source requires significant thinking and discipline when a library becomes heavily used.
I've been told directly by multiple Angular team members that over 70% of Google apps uses Angular in some fashion.
They have said the usage of Angular off of HEAD of master publicly in the past as well, but I don't recall off the top of my head where they have said this.
Well, this thread definitely shined some new light on the area for my. I was actually under the impression that Angular (at least 1.*) wasn't really used within Google. I guess I'm just that stupid and naive.
Yeah I think that's the key difference: the size of the production apps. Though to be fair, Angular is a much bigger part of the front-end stack than React and not something that would be feasible to retrofit GMail/YouTube/etc. with.
Google tends to release code and promote it without really using it much internally first. Documentation is prolific but confusingly organized and often fragmented among several versions simultaneously (cough, Google Analytics).
Facebook, on the other hand, actually seems to use their code before releasing and promoting it. Look at how they handled GraphQL: spec and reference implementation released a year ago, clearly labeled as a "Technology Preview". A lot of design work went into it before that, informed by the problems of internal product teams. Only a few days ago was it promoted as ready for production. The spec hardly changed it the last year. Documentation is good, and they work with the community to improve DX.
Why the difference? Hard to say, but my feeling is that there's a more direct link between Facebook's product-driven open source work and their bottom line. There are other startups constantly nipping at their heels, so they need to be on their game product-wise. Better code -> better products -> profits.
Google is largely impervious in the search and ad space, which is their cash cow. It almost doesn't matter how good or bad their other products are. The company is not at risk. Their open source work reflects that.