1. 33
  1.  

  2. 4

    I’m guessing that Google kept most of those tools they built for making JS usable private so they never ended up becoming what we all use today and instead others have reinvented all of it.

    1. 2

      Closure Compiler is totally an alternate-history TypeScript. It’s a pleasure to use if you get it set up right.

      1. 2

        They published a lot of them but at the time they were working with much bigger and weirder codebases than the rest of the industry.

        1. 0

          I wish they had done the same with MapReduce, Dart and Go …

          1. 2

            Why?

            1. 1

              Something with more technical merit could have taken their place.

            2. 2

              Better to help other tools than hate on ones you dislike.

              1. 1

                And that’s what I did in the past. But the thing is, if you write software to have some amount of users, adoption matters, and adoption rarely follows quality.

                You could have written something 10 times better than what Google published, and everyone would still flock to Google’s software. Technical merit << Google name-drop.

                1. 1

                  I tend to look at things like that as a competitive edge for myself.

          2. 6

            Meanwhile, outside of Google, JavaScript also continued to evolve and surprisingly even became popular. In part to work around those IE garbage collection bugs we built Chrome which led to v8 which led to nodejs which means most web tools today are themselves written in JavaScript, unlike the Java used to build this sort of tool at Google.

            This is not the right history. Google built Chrome because they became frustrated with having to cooperate with Mozilla; previously they had assigned engineers to work on Firefox. Chrome was almost certainly built so that Google would not have to worry about Mozilla changing their default search engine, or about Mozilla implementing/refusing to implement features that Google didn’t want/wanted.

            1. 5

              The author was an early engineer on the Chrome project and the former TL of the Linux port. He says “in part”, fully understanding that Chrome was built for a number of reasons and that some of them are relevant to his post while others, frankly, aren’t.