And I would do it again in a heartbeat.

As Howell wrote: "I am often a dick, I am often difficult, I often don’t know computer science, but. BUT. I make really good things, maybe they aren't perfect, but people really like them".

My belief, which it seems you do not share, is that a project like homebrew is perfectly analogous to a project like a self-made compiler. They illustrate broader scale systems thinking, although the specific computer science fundamentals will be different for each of those two problems, the a system like homebrew likely also has to have more focus on deployment, user interface, and project management tasks (which, I would argue, makes it more relevant for most hiring situations).

I can't comment on whether Howell's self-deprecation was meant to be tongue-in-cheek criticism of Google or if he sincerely meant it, and of course those interpersonal reasons could have been at fault for a failed interview (although it doesn't seem that anyone disputes that it was actually just a straightforward result of some binary tree trivia).

Writing a C compiler is not like other side-projects. It explicitly exercises a whole bunch of basic Computer Science skills, so if you can write a compiler, you obviously got a good grasp on those.

So, no, a project like homebrew is not perfectly analogous to a compiler. The hardest CS problem in there in my opinion is the dependency resolution, which can be a bitch, but it just doesn't have the breadth of problems that a compiler has.

Creating a package manager, which is mostly "gluing things together without understanding how they work", is a very different skillset than being able to work from first principles. I suspect Google was looking more for the latter.

Speaking as someone who has written pieces of compilers, emulators, assemblers, and related software in my spare time, I can say that even mentioning those things casually is enough to get some "you did what?" looks.

Most HR departments will only care about latest set of projects and education, barely giving any value to side projects.

Yes, there are those that care about side projects, passion and such, but most of them tend to be startups and sometimes not with the desired set of benefits or requiring relocation.

Edit: wrote "talk to me" instead of "hire me"

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/21/ken_thompson_take_o...

If you refer to this:

https://www.quora.com/When-do-you-need-to-invert-a-binary-tr...

I also don't know why would anybody ever need to implement "inverting" a binary tree except for the Google exam.

> Most likely he implemented more binary trees in his live

"Most likely"? Actually he "just" invented (not a complete list):

- Unix (with Ritchie) (in assembly first)

- the language B, based on which Ritchie developed C.

- the notation for the regular expressions everybody uses today

- the algorithm for fast regular expression handling

- the chess computer that won the 3rd World Computer Chess Championship 1980

He implemented a BCPL dialect, which he called B, in fact if you compare B and BCPL programming manuals they are quite similar.

https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/bcpl.html

https://www.talisman.org/b-manual.html

> "Most likely"? Actually he "just" invented (not a complete list):

Please mind the full quote of me "... than I thought of" -- I thought (and implemented) about trees quite a bit myself and grant him a few factors on top of that.

I know I thought it would be a lot harder than it was. I spent some hours checking example interview questions, and it was definitely enough. If anything, I might have been too focused on thinking in terms of established algorithms, and too little focused on reasoning on my own.

But it's irrelevant to what I wanted to point to: that somebody already accepted Ken Thompson to Google. Then some absurd bureaucracy decided that Ken Thompson has to pass the exams given to the young beginners. Probably reasoning something like somebody here "explained" "so that developers can be moved around."

Whoever is not aware of these "details", please see my another post for what Ken Thompson invented before coming to Google. Such "minor things" like the Unix OS, the language that preceded and inspired C and the currently used kind of regular expressions.

Would you agree with me that if you brought Ken Thompson for that to your company (or using that excuse to require from him to "pass the C exam") something is fundamentally wrong?

He actually co-invented Unix and worked on the "first C" before C was even called C.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_(programming_language)

It's like hiring J. K. Rowling and then requiring from her to pass the Harry Potter trivia quiz in order to allow her to write text messages.

2) C can be written in many styles, whatever he writes should be an easy uptake for later developers, thus adhere to the common style

I have no doubts that he can express anything in C and I assume this would be of good quality, but might take a different approach, thus makes it harder for the junior who is trained heavily in Google style and has to fix a bug or add a feature a bit later.

That screens out a few employers, but not nearly as many as you think. Most are desperately looking for a way to determine that a candidate is good. Sitting back while they explain in increasing detail how their pet project works is close to ideal here.

People usually omit the part that Homebrew was at that point a quite shitty reiteration of ideas well-implemented in many other places (RPM/Yum, DEB/APT, and half a dozen other package managers). It was a common complaint that installing one package could break several others, because Homebrew updated some common dependency and the new one was missing symbols or had otherwise incompatible ABI. There also was this hilarious bug report that Homebrew served everything over plain HTTP (and Homebrew had no digital signatures whatsoever), and the ticket got closed by a Homebrew team member saying it's not a problem, which spoke tons about their competency in package management.

I don't know how the situation looks now, but when Howell was interviewed by Google, Homebrew was not something you could be proud of writing.

Anyone should be proud of writing a widely used tool that provides value to so many individuals and companies, regardless of nitpicks from the peanut gallery.

I realize we might just disagree in our assessments, but I think this is an unfair characterization. At that point in time, homebrew was basically the only way I could get cross-platform support to work for several image processing projects that my lab was working on. To us, despite its obvious rough-around-the-edges needs for incremental improvement over time, it was a complete lifesaver.

I think this speaks to a larger point too about the way that engineers cut down and compete with other engineers in petty ways, instead of acknowledging that getting a complex working system up and running that adds value for people is a huge accomplishment that utterly dwarfs any sort of algorithm trivia in terms of whether a candidate is worth hiring, especially in a company like Google.

The perspective that,

> "when Howell was interviewed by Google, Homebrew was not something you could be proud of writing."

is just so incompatible with my world view about what counts in software engineering that it likely means we are coming from perspectives so far apart that there's little hope we could agree.

> [...] likely [...] we are coming from perspectives so far apart that there's little hope we could agree.

You see, I come from Linux administration field. We have package managers deployed in the field for two decades now. These package managers usually don't silently break your library dependencies on update (though Fedora and desktop Ubuntu break them with a lot of noise) and have integrity ensured cryptographically. I take these features almost for granted, as I work with them every day for a long time. Any package manager that provides anything less than that is, in my view, badly designed, especially because there are many examples of how it should be done, it just takes some effort to learn them.

On the other hand, you, coming from macOS angle, didn't have a prior experience of working with many package managers -- or at least that's my guess. If I am right, it's quite clear why a poorly designed but popular package manager (i.e. one that has many packages available already) was a huge improvement for you. It was the same for Debian's APT twenty years ago, but APT had pretty much no prior art and the internet was not a viruses/worms/spyware-driven machine it is nowadays.

No, as a user of every previous package manager for macOS, I can tell you that Homebrew was successful because it actually worked, and worked really well, and it kept working even for prerelease versions of macOS.

This doesn’t mean that it’s well designed or secure. But it’s not a marketing cream puff.

There were package managers before Homebrew, such as MacPorts and Fink–which went as far to use APT.

Just to clarify this: I personally have always used Debian and Ubuntu, and spent a lot of time with APT (including helping to build a PPA for wrapping a custom wrapper for NetworkManager for my company because their third-party VPN solution prevented all of us who use solely Linux from being able to work remotely for a while.

Despite my personal views that Linux provides me with better tooling, many of my colleagues don't share that view, and they like to use Mac. At times, homebrew has given us a super easy way to solve some problems that arise from that situation.

This doesn't mean it's perfect. Just that it solves specific problems that a lot of users have in a way where they are not adversely affected by its downsides. Every tool out there will have downsides, and a subset of the population who hates the tool because of those downsides.

It just strikes me as incredibly myopic to privilege your own experience in system administration as oh so much more enlightened than a person manage the overall problem of a package management tool that users are actually using with success.

It's just tone deaf to me to say, "but for these engineering reason that I care about, I discredit the entire achievement of the project because the author didn't design it the way I want."

And even if it's not merely "the way you want" but includes broader and more established criteria from history of package management solutions, it's still nonsense to use that to dismiss it.

It's a lot like the shortsighted dismissals of early MongoDB, which went after very specific customer use cases at the expense of omitting big design considerations that the history of database engineering had come to accept as standard.

MongoDB used this to build a customer base who was happy with what they engineered. And then began investing in going back to fix the things that were glaringly suboptimal from historical database perspective.

Lots of people wallowed in their constant criticism of MongoDB, turning their noses up at it. Yet now it's a public company, releasing lots of features that bring it into alignment with those earlier best practices that it was forced to omit for the sake of addressing shorter term workflow needs of its customers.

To me, this is effective engineering. Sticking my nose up at MongoDB because of its earlier choices to omit accepted database designs would be a silly way to look at it.

I'm not saying that example maps perfectly to homebrew, but it is similar in spirit.

It's one thing to say, "I don't like that homebrew prioritized XYZ for its users short term experience instead of addressing big, underlying, sysadmin design considerations ABC."

It's totally different to say that this choice entirely discredits the project.

Users use with success plenty of ill-suited tools for various purposes. It doesn't make the tools any better, merely more widely used. There are many examples of better products dying, while worse products take over the market.

My experience with system administration gives me better standing ground for assessing technical aspects of package managers. These technical aspects have little to do with success of any particular package manager, though, which I find unfortunate.

> To me, this [MongoDB; Homebrew too?] is effective engineering.

Effective marketing. Engineering, not quite, especially with MongoDB's track of losing real data because of operations tuned for benchmarks.

> I'm not saying that example maps perfectly to homebrew, but it is similar in spirit.

It is a similar case indeed. Especially in how marketing was much more important for adoption than technical grounds.

Still is afaik.

It’s hard to take a package manager seriously when it refuses to run as root and installs system-wide tools as user-owned.