One of my first jobs was a small software company writing software for a small number of clients, in MS basic PDS.
The lead developer didn't like to bother with formatting code, so I wrote a tool called makenice to format his nasty spaghetti gibberish into something with good indents and layout to make it easier for us normal people to parse.
He was furious, literally spun in circles about it right in the office in front of everyone, so I wrote makenasty to format code into the way he appeared to like.
I only shared makenasty/nice with a couple of the team, who loved it, as it allowed easy conversion between something readable and something the team lead like.
Outside of the naming - this is a perfectly sane thing to do for developer comfort and can usually be accomplished with simple transformations.
There are often limitations (like manually added indentation/spacing for alignment) but as long as you're very intentional about what changes you'll allow and have a good understanding of the language it can be an extremely safe operation.
I find a lot of these conflicts I can't resolve when everybody agrees that the pain of ugly/unnecessary diffs is greater than the pain of minor formatting disagreements.
This kind of passive-aggressive bullshit is exactly what's wrong with tech. People don't decide things: they just passively resist, and authority ends up being a muddle of truncated information flows.
> We chose a Saturday to format the entire codebase to avoid merge conflicts. And while our test suite gave us high confidence we'd gotten everything right, it's always a bit daunting to have a diff so large that GitHub can't render it.
The dart formatter has an internal sanity check. It walks through the unformatted and formatted strings in parallel skipping any whitespace. If any non-whitespace characters don't match, it immediately aborts. This ensures that the only thing the formatter changes is whitespace, and makes it much less spooky to run it blind on a huge codebase.
That sanity check has saved my ass a couple of times when weird bugs crept in, usually around unusual combinations of language features around new syntax.
(Unfortunately, the formatter in the past year has gotten a little more flexible about the kinds of changes it makes, including sometimes moving comments relatively to commas and brackets, so this sanity check skips some punctuation characters too, making it a little less reliable.)
I've always thought it would make sense for formatters to be baked into the toolchain so that they can reuse the language's parser (presumably exposed as a library) and then be implemented via parsing to AST and then formatted back out so that they're guaranteed to be correct and normalized. This doesn't seem to be how most formatters work in practice though, although I'm not sure if it's because of performance reasons or a lack of support for the parser being exposed in language toolchains.
I'm surprised they went with a all-at-once reformat. Even when doing it over a weekend this is bound to mess with a lot of open PRs at their scale.
I had to introduce a formatter in a few sizeable codebases in the past (few 100k to few million LOC), and I always did it incrementally via a script that reformatted all files that are not touched in any open PR.
The initial run reformatted 95% of all files. Then I ran the script every day for ~two weeks and got up to 99.5% of all files and then manually each time one of the remaining ~dozen PRs that were WIP for longer were merged.
both options have their pros and cons. if you utilize some form of ratcheting[1], you can sneak it in without your team knowing.. but all of your PRs for the foreseeable future will have a ton of reformatting screwing with your git blame. if you do it all at once, someone will have to sort out conflicts, but you can utilize `blame.ignoreRevsFile`[2] so that your history remains useful
Even if you spread out reformatting over multiple commits in different PRs, you can still make use of blame.ignoreRevsFile as long as your pull request workflow doesn't enforce squash merges even when somebody took extra care to produce a nice commit history.
Yes, that is a good point. This is also why I personally would recommend to let a central person/team handle the reformatting rather than sneaking it into every PR (- see my sibling comment). That way you can be in charge of having a uniform style of commit messages to make the reformat commits easy to identify and create a well kept ignoreRevsFile. I think that provides the best of both worlds.
Unfortunately I find that code bases lacking auto formatting are often littered with non functional changes as developers temporarily instrument code, remove it, but leave whitespace changes behind.
In terms of tracking code changes, one really would have to rewrite the entire history with each commit reformatted.
> I'm surprised they went with a all-at-once reformat. Even when doing it over a weekend this is bound to mess with a lot of open PRs at their scale.
Rebasing PRs should be trivial, just rewrite all commits reformatting the files it touches, then rebase, `git checkout --theirs`, run formatter again, and `git rebase --continue`. It's methodical and scriptable, you don't need to manually resolve any conflicts.
In the smaller migrations I did I tried that, but some way or another a decent chunk of the people still managed to get stuck in merge/rebase conflicts. I would almost explicitly not recommend giving that advise to the teams.
My rough blueprint for introducing formatter or linter nowadys would be:
- Recorded knowledge share session around how to set up the tools for local use 1-2 weeks before the initial rollout, and outline how the process will take place
- On the day of the initial rollout send out a reminder + the recording again
- Do the initial PR
- Incrementally do the rest of the migration, and subscribe to the PRs that drag out the process
This is exactly the remedy to the PR issue. I've "lucked" into owning a Prettier formatting pass at two different places now, and did the same process at each - full pass on master, simple step-by-step process to follow to update any PR by running the format script.
That’s orders of magnitude faster, especially if we assume they’re not running their workloads on potatoes like mine. Is Ruby’s syntax really that much more complicated than C++, or is this a tooling problem?
I don't think the post necessarily means it took multiple hours to format the codebase, I think they're probably just saying they worked on it off-hours and landed it while no one was working so that it didn't run into merge conflicts.
iirc they also vendor(ed) many of their dependencies, several layers deep, which still counts for "stores" though it's rather different than "wrote" / "maintains".
That sounds even more insane to me, but I guess most of that code does not really touch financial transactions, otherwise it would be a nightmare being responsible to verify that.
Ruby code touches financial transactions. Card payments were migrated to Java when I left in 2022. Non-card payments (e.g., ACH, checks, various wallets) were still processed by Ruby.
PCI-related/vaulting code lived in its own locked-down repo. I think that was a mix of Go and Ruby.
Once you have the foundations in place for account balances and the ledger, processing a payment isn’t that daunting. Those foundations, however, took a lot to build and evolve.
> Once you have the foundations in place for account balances and the ledger, processing a payment isn’t that daunting. Those foundations, however, took a lot to build and evolve.
Pretty much. I've worked at places with PHP payment processing that worked just fine, and at a place with C++ payment processing (and no testers) and it worked just fine. I wasn't around when the systems were first built though so not sure if there were tears along the way.
I recently wrote a very esoteric Python script. 100 lines of code. No classes, no functions, but yes argparse.
I've tried out the latest open source models on the task. They go bananas. It's like Enterprise fizzbuzz (https://github.com/enterprisequalitycoding/fizzbuzzenterpris...). They love classes and imports and reinventing the wheel. A great way for me to tell trash AI slop code is it'll define a useful constant then 15 lines later do it again with a different name.
They love making code that looks impressive. "Wow look at all the classes and functions. It's so scalable. It's so dynamic. It validates every minutae against multiple schema and solves a problem I never thought about." But it was trash code. One really was 400 lines and it didn't even look like it would work. Can't even imagine what it means for 4.5M moderately good human lines to become what? 27M fluffy filler repeat lines that don't even make sense?
Yeah maybe I need to do the old "you are a veteran engineer" nonsense. I've had some success telling it to implement everything it suggests and be production ready. I hate when it takes a shortcut and says I'll have to change it. That's kinda the whole point of me not writing the code...
Unless I’m mistaken, it’s a monorepo. So it’s not 25M LoC in a single app, it’s (all?) of their server-side code and shared libraries. There’s also a variety of other languages in use.
16 years and thousands of engineers write a lot of code.
Really reminds me that there's nothing in principle stopping us from storing parse trees and exposing them via something git like so we can avoid even needing to format, let alone also needing to resolve a whole category of merge conflicts based on that formatting. I mean a format is just a theme over your data -- I mean code.
I don't understand why the felt the need to do a big-bang merge like this. Its a formatter, so the files should be functionally equivalent before and after. Why not just enable it for new files/edit files for a while, then once comfortable apply it to old files in batches? What advantage does the big bang merge give? Seems higher risk for the same reward
could introduce subtle bugs, so doing it all at once while it's on the front of everybody's mind with as much comprehensive review and testing of parts or the whole to everybody's satisfaction. if you don't do it all at once, you'd need to repeat the same amount of testing multiple times.
>files should be functionally equivalent before and after
when you say something like this, the road you are on is paved with good intentions.
> Given that complexity, the hypothesis was simple: tackle the hardest syntax first and the rest will follow.
Always nice to see. I've seen people fall into the trap of designing for the common case, not realizing most of the code will be to deal with the less common cases.
In another field I have heard it called going for the jugular; the vivid description helps get the point across nicely.
If you want to master something, you will have to know the hardest part. So just deal with that first and then everything else is easy, because you are dealing with it as somebody who has already mastered the domain.
The floating spiral thing is so distracting I spent more time deleting it in Inspector than reading the article. I feel like they hate their readers. Awful.
Clean indenting is about saving time so you don't spend way too long getting lost trying to understand what seems like an insane piece of code until you realize it was a mundane bug hidden by incoherent indentation.
Every LLM I have ever asked about this says they perform better when they receive pretty-printed code because it is easier to see structure and priorities. It has been an almost universal recommendation for me, and it makes sense since LLMs are just mimicking human expression.
An insight about code is that compared to the scale we operate on data, code as text is tiny. Instantaneous git operations and “run this tool over all the code” are the norm even while we wait for LLMs to stream their tokens to stream back so tool calls can operate on it.
That insight might seem obvious - but if you stay cognizant of it as you work, you can invent some pretty amazing tooling for yourself & your team.
One of my first jobs was a small software company writing software for a small number of clients, in MS basic PDS.
The lead developer didn't like to bother with formatting code, so I wrote a tool called makenice to format his nasty spaghetti gibberish into something with good indents and layout to make it easier for us normal people to parse.
He was furious, literally spun in circles about it right in the office in front of everyone, so I wrote makenasty to format code into the way he appeared to like.
I only shared makenasty/nice with a couple of the team, who loved it, as it allowed easy conversion between something readable and something the team lead like.
He never knew about makenasty.
Outside of the naming - this is a perfectly sane thing to do for developer comfort and can usually be accomplished with simple transformations.
There are often limitations (like manually added indentation/spacing for alignment) but as long as you're very intentional about what changes you'll allow and have a good understanding of the language it can be an extremely safe operation.
I think git’s naming is actually pretty reasonable: smudge (on checkout) & clean (on stage).
If he didn't bother formatting code, it would seem impossible to create a tool that formatted code the way he preferred.
Sounds like he did format code, and even had opinions on how it should be formatted, but OP disagreed.
I find a lot of these conflicts I can't resolve when everybody agrees that the pain of ugly/unnecessary diffs is greater than the pain of minor formatting disagreements.
reminds me of rob pike mentioning gofmt's style is "no one's favorite"
Having K&R brackets be a syntactical requirement and everything else is a syntax error is okay with me though.
This kind of passive-aggressive bullshit is exactly what's wrong with tech. People don't decide things: they just passively resist, and authority ends up being a muddle of truncated information flows.
If someone sharing an old war story with what I felt was a positive and joking tone triggered you this bad, I feel bad for anyone working with you.
Nothing in tech is worth going through life miserable. Nothing.
> We chose a Saturday to format the entire codebase to avoid merge conflicts. And while our test suite gave us high confidence we'd gotten everything right, it's always a bit daunting to have a diff so large that GitHub can't render it.
The dart formatter has an internal sanity check. It walks through the unformatted and formatted strings in parallel skipping any whitespace. If any non-whitespace characters don't match, it immediately aborts. This ensures that the only thing the formatter changes is whitespace, and makes it much less spooky to run it blind on a huge codebase.
That sanity check has saved my ass a couple of times when weird bugs crept in, usually around unusual combinations of language features around new syntax.
(Unfortunately, the formatter in the past year has gotten a little more flexible about the kinds of changes it makes, including sometimes moving comments relatively to commas and brackets, so this sanity check skips some punctuation characters too, making it a little less reliable.)
I imagine a fancier version would be to compare the Abstract Syntax Trees.
I've always thought it would make sense for formatters to be baked into the toolchain so that they can reuse the language's parser (presumably exposed as a library) and then be implemented via parsing to AST and then formatted back out so that they're guaranteed to be correct and normalized. This doesn't seem to be how most formatters work in practice though, although I'm not sure if it's because of performance reasons or a lack of support for the parser being exposed in language toolchains.
The only issue is then you're at the mercy of whatever parser your formatter uses to construct the AST
Well, if any (common, non-hobby) parser is thrown off by the reformatting, then it's probably not a safe reformatting either way.
Lots of formatters also unify things like trailing commas, so it would be slightly more involved than this.
Strictly speaking that wouldn’t work, since a1 is different from a 1, for example.
I don't think they're trying to say that this is a sufficient test for correctness but a necessary one.
I'm surprised they went with a all-at-once reformat. Even when doing it over a weekend this is bound to mess with a lot of open PRs at their scale.
I had to introduce a formatter in a few sizeable codebases in the past (few 100k to few million LOC), and I always did it incrementally via a script that reformatted all files that are not touched in any open PR. The initial run reformatted 95% of all files. Then I ran the script every day for ~two weeks and got up to 99.5% of all files and then manually each time one of the remaining ~dozen PRs that were WIP for longer were merged.
both options have their pros and cons. if you utilize some form of ratcheting[1], you can sneak it in without your team knowing.. but all of your PRs for the foreseeable future will have a ton of reformatting screwing with your git blame. if you do it all at once, someone will have to sort out conflicts, but you can utilize `blame.ignoreRevsFile`[2] so that your history remains useful
[1] https://github.com/diffplug/spotless/tree/main/plugin-gradle...
[2] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-blame#Documentation/git-blame.t...
Even if you spread out reformatting over multiple commits in different PRs, you can still make use of blame.ignoreRevsFile as long as your pull request workflow doesn't enforce squash merges even when somebody took extra care to produce a nice commit history.
Yes, that is a good point. This is also why I personally would recommend to let a central person/team handle the reformatting rather than sneaking it into every PR (- see my sibling comment). That way you can be in charge of having a uniform style of commit messages to make the reformat commits easy to identify and create a well kept ignoreRevsFile. I think that provides the best of both worlds.
That’s a neat feature, thanks for sharing.
Unfortunately I find that code bases lacking auto formatting are often littered with non functional changes as developers temporarily instrument code, remove it, but leave whitespace changes behind.
In terms of tracking code changes, one really would have to rewrite the entire history with each commit reformatted.
> I'm surprised they went with a all-at-once reformat. Even when doing it over a weekend this is bound to mess with a lot of open PRs at their scale.
Rebasing PRs should be trivial, just rewrite all commits reformatting the files it touches, then rebase, `git checkout --theirs`, run formatter again, and `git rebase --continue`. It's methodical and scriptable, you don't need to manually resolve any conflicts.
You can always let the team know so that they can apply the formatter on their PR branch.
In the smaller migrations I did I tried that, but some way or another a decent chunk of the people still managed to get stuck in merge/rebase conflicts. I would almost explicitly not recommend giving that advise to the teams.
My rough blueprint for introducing formatter or linter nowadys would be:
- Recorded knowledge share session around how to set up the tools for local use 1-2 weeks before the initial rollout, and outline how the process will take place
- On the day of the initial rollout send out a reminder + the recording again
- Do the initial PR
- Incrementally do the rest of the migration, and subscribe to the PRs that drag out the process
This is exactly the remedy to the PR issue. I've "lucked" into owning a Prettier formatting pass at two different places now, and did the same process at each - full pass on master, simple step-by-step process to follow to update any PR by running the format script.
It's probably because the author can shit on others (let me guess, a senior principal something engineer).
I’m shocked at the 25M line part! That is a completely unfathomable amount of code for one codebase. I really want to know more about that.
I am more shocked by the "overnight" aspect. I tried running clang-format on the Chromium source (68,281 .cc files, 21 million lines according to wc):
$ find chromium-149.0.7826.1/ -name ".cc" -exec cat {} + | wc 21640925 55715244 833460441
And that took less than 6 minutes on a single E5-2696 v3 from 2014:
$ time find chromium-149.0.7826.1/ -name *.cc | parallel -j 16 clang-format $x>/dev/null
real 0m5.666s user 1m13.964s sys 0m13.373s
That’s orders of magnitude faster, especially if we assume they’re not running their workloads on potatoes like mine. Is Ruby’s syntax really that much more complicated than C++, or is this a tooling problem?
I don't think the post necessarily means it took multiple hours to format the codebase, I think they're probably just saying they worked on it off-hours and landed it while no one was working so that it didn't run into merge conflicts.
My guess would be tooling. I think the Ruby formatters are written in Ruby. I’d guess the clang one is written in C.
Nah the article says it's rust and calling into a C library for parsing.
Only 25 million? :) Google had billions a decade ago...
https://research.google/pubs/why-google-stores-billions-of-l...
iirc they also vendor(ed) many of their dependencies, several layers deep, which still counts for "stores" though it's rather different than "wrote" / "maintains".
Very true. It was still hundreds of millions of lines of first party code a decade ago, and could easily be over a billion at this point.
Yeah, I can definitely believe that Google would break over a billion handwritten. It's a big company that has been around for a long time.
It's still absurd. But believable.
Right, where is the rest of the code?
They're up to 42 million now, as per the article
That sounds even more insane to me, but I guess most of that code does not really touch financial transactions, otherwise it would be a nightmare being responsible to verify that.
Ruby code touches financial transactions. Card payments were migrated to Java when I left in 2022. Non-card payments (e.g., ACH, checks, various wallets) were still processed by Ruby.
PCI-related/vaulting code lived in its own locked-down repo. I think that was a mix of Go and Ruby.
Once you have the foundations in place for account balances and the ledger, processing a payment isn’t that daunting. Those foundations, however, took a lot to build and evolve.
> Once you have the foundations in place for account balances and the ledger, processing a payment isn’t that daunting. Those foundations, however, took a lot to build and evolve.
Pretty much. I've worked at places with PHP payment processing that worked just fine, and at a place with C++ payment processing (and no testers) and it worked just fine. I wasn't around when the systems were first built though so not sure if there were tears along the way.
> migrated to Java
I want to know more about this
My (much smaller than Stripe) company is well over 4.5M at this point, and the graph is very much exponential.
AI has been a huge problem here: the amount of code is just exploding. Quality of the produced code is another matter.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I recently wrote a very esoteric Python script. 100 lines of code. No classes, no functions, but yes argparse.
I've tried out the latest open source models on the task. They go bananas. It's like Enterprise fizzbuzz (https://github.com/enterprisequalitycoding/fizzbuzzenterpris...). They love classes and imports and reinventing the wheel. A great way for me to tell trash AI slop code is it'll define a useful constant then 15 lines later do it again with a different name.
They love making code that looks impressive. "Wow look at all the classes and functions. It's so scalable. It's so dynamic. It validates every minutae against multiple schema and solves a problem I never thought about." But it was trash code. One really was 400 lines and it didn't even look like it would work. Can't even imagine what it means for 4.5M moderately good human lines to become what? 27M fluffy filler repeat lines that don't even make sense?
The bad part of LLM is it got trained on bad examples because us humans also don't know WTF we're doing.
Yeah maybe I need to do the old "you are a veteran engineer" nonsense. I've had some success telling it to implement everything it suggests and be production ready. I hate when it takes a shortcut and says I'll have to change it. That's kinda the whole point of me not writing the code...
Unless I’m mistaken, it’s a monorepo. So it’s not 25M LoC in a single app, it’s (all?) of their server-side code and shared libraries. There’s also a variety of other languages in use.
16 years and thousands of engineers write a lot of code.
Imagine lots and lots of models and stubs generated from swagger, protobuf, sqlc etc.
Really reminds me that there's nothing in principle stopping us from storing parse trees and exposing them via something git like so we can avoid even needing to format, let alone also needing to resolve a whole category of merge conflicts based on that formatting. I mean a format is just a theme over your data -- I mean code.
I don't understand why the felt the need to do a big-bang merge like this. Its a formatter, so the files should be functionally equivalent before and after. Why not just enable it for new files/edit files for a while, then once comfortable apply it to old files in batches? What advantage does the big bang merge give? Seems higher risk for the same reward
could introduce subtle bugs, so doing it all at once while it's on the front of everybody's mind with as much comprehensive review and testing of parts or the whole to everybody's satisfaction. if you don't do it all at once, you'd need to repeat the same amount of testing multiple times.
>files should be functionally equivalent before and after
when you say something like this, the road you are on is paved with good intentions.
You can also introduce subtle bugs in your own feature development, and if you change formatting there it's also at the front of your mind.
I think the main argument for doing a big bang rewrite is that you have a defined before/after, otherwise you're stuck into an endless in-between.
> Given that complexity, the hypothesis was simple: tackle the hardest syntax first and the rest will follow.
Always nice to see. I've seen people fall into the trap of designing for the common case, not realizing most of the code will be to deal with the less common cases.
In another field I have heard it called going for the jugular; the vivid description helps get the point across nicely.
If you want to master something, you will have to know the hardest part. So just deal with that first and then everything else is easy, because you are dealing with it as somebody who has already mastered the domain.
The floating spiral thing is so distracting I spent more time deleting it in Inspector than reading the article. I feel like they hate their readers. Awful.
If you set `prefers-reduced-motion: reduce`, it goes away
How did I know this was going to be a rewrite in Rust?
Man must me nice to have the time to put so much work into tabs.
Clean indenting is about saving time so you don't spend way too long getting lost trying to understand what seems like an insane piece of code until you realize it was a mundane bug hidden by incoherent indentation.
Cool story. The treat at the end was fun as well, thank you!
Now it makes me wonder, are those 45M LoC are untyped ?
No, Stripe has its own Ruby typechecker - https://sorbet.org/
https://brandur.org/nanoglyphs/015-ruby-typing#ruby-typing
Surely, it no longer needs to be human-readable, and the era of write-only code is finally upon us with the dawn of AI writing our mealtickets.
Why bother formatting 25m lines of slop, and why is AI wasting tokens on making code look human-readable anyway?
Every LLM I have ever asked about this says they perform better when they receive pretty-printed code because it is easier to see structure and priorities. It has been an almost universal recommendation for me, and it makes sense since LLMs are just mimicking human expression.
you asked the llm? i'm confused
you do understand it can't "know" how it performs right?
What is even the point of formatting code anymore.
clean diffs for one
To make it look nice and readable
For an agent?
For you, the person reading and writing the code
An insight about code is that compared to the scale we operate on data, code as text is tiny. Instantaneous git operations and “run this tool over all the code” are the norm even while we wait for LLMs to stream their tokens to stream back so tool calls can operate on it.
That insight might seem obvious - but if you stay cognizant of it as you work, you can invent some pretty amazing tooling for yourself & your team.