Meanwhile Google acquired windsurf, released antigravity, and recently handicapped it for Google business workspace users by removing the AI Ultra plan for workspace. So the only real way to use antigravity is either being a Google employee or using a personal account and AI Ultra.
It was a sad surprise last week when we tried to upgrade the workspace AI plan for some of our team members to Ultra and it was gone. We're moving to Claude/Codex.
I can't imagine people enjoying web based IDEs. I used to work for a company that has everything made internally, including IDE -- they used the same method OP described -- using VSCode on web. The experience is horrible.
I guess maybe it was fancy back in mid 2010s, but my experience was a couple of years ago.
The advantages of a single platform are as obvious as the disadvantages. In that they are often whatever you want to frame them as for a narrative.
I do think Google will continue to get results out of their tooling, as long as they are investing in the tooling. But that is not zero cost. Is it worth it for what they are doing? Largely seems to be.
But it isn't like they are that much more successful at software projects than any other company? They are still largely an ads company, no?
Google is an ads company with a large amount of infrastructure to back it up.
Sure, the money is mostly in ads, but serving searches, AI, youtube, and all the rest at the scale Google does it requires a technical tour-de-force. Does Google do it better than everyone? Absolutely not. But it does it better than many.
Certainly it isn't the _only_ way to do it--other companies also manage to do it. But not all that many at the same scale. It's an existence proof that you can.
Most of what they do really really well, though, is accomplished by massive amounts of spending. That isn't a knock on it.
Consider that they spend more on trying to build up and support this central IDE than most companies dream of losing in productivity to not having this.
I mean, ads is 73% of revenue. Of the rest, ~60% is Cloud, ~35% is hardware and subscriptions and app store fees.
So, sure, lots of spots for software there. But still nothing that would make me think of them as a software company. Or, worse, a lot of software that I don't have a strongly favorable view on. :D
Do they have more success in software products than other companies, though? Most of the software many of us know from them, were acquisitions. They still do heavy acquisitions. Notable that they have double the acquisitions of Amazon. They are on par with IBM. A colossal amount of money spent to make things happen.
So, again, are they that much more successful at software than other companies? They have more hilarious flops than any other company.
Don't get me wrong. I still use some of the stuff. I don't hate them. I don't even think they are particularly bad at things. I just don't think they are any more successful than other software companies. Specifically at the software side of it.
I had to laugh we he said it took a dozen people a couple years. That's a terribly small investment relative to the leverage over developer productivity, and pales in comparison to what eBay, IBM et al spent in similar large but specialized developer populations for integrated tooling.
I'd like to hear the perspective of the developer/user; the IDE provider has some incentive to take credit and imply high utilization reflects success rather than Google policy.
I'm interested in how tooling conditions developer expectations more broadly. I'd love to see a comparison of Linux OS development (all local+open+git, open but contributor hierarchy) vs Google (monorepo+required tooling, pre-allocated authority) from someone who's done both.
There's more history than this. Disclaimer: Xoogler (2010-2017).
When I first started the environment you used depended entirely on language. In the C++ and Python space, there was the vim and emacs divide. With Java it was more complicated. Some still used vim/emacs but a lot of people used Eclipse.
Now Eclipse was a real problem at Google because of the source control system. Java IDEs are primarily built to import binaries, specifically jars. In the outside world, these dependencies are managed via Ant (very early days), Maven/Gradle or the like.
At Google there's a mono-repo (Perforce/Piper) and you check out parts of it locally and rely on the rest via a network connection (to SrcFS IIRC, it's been awhile). This was neat because you could edit a file locally and the dependencies would just recompile (via Blaze).
So for Eclipse a whole lot of initialization had to be done and the IDE would fall over. A lot. It had a team of ~10 working on it at one point. Then somebody did a 20% project called magicjar. Magicjar took a Perforce client and built all the dependencies as jars that could be imported directly without parsing the entire source tree (which was usually huge). This made it possible, even preferred, to use IntelliJ, which is what I did. Magicjar was great.
Other people actually made CLion work reasonably well with C++ too. That was nice. This was a much bigger undertaking with many more corner cases just given how C++ works (ie headers and templates).
So checking out a client was relatively heavyweight, even with a minimal local tree. And, if you worked on Google3, you had to do this a lot. You might need to do a config file change. This was the real starting point for Cider because it was way nicer to do config file changes with it.
Obviously I don't know where all this went from there. VS Studio as a Cider frontend? Ok, that was news to me. Engineers being unhappy when things change and when the slightest thing works differently is the least surprising thing I've ever heard.
Oh it's worth adding that in my time many people didn't use Perforce (P4) directly. They used somebody else's project, which was a Git frontend for it, called Git5. I believe it was already being deprecated while I was still there. But Git5 modelled a P4 change as a branch so you could play around with your Git commits locally and then squash them into a single P4 change. I actually liked this a lot.
You don't really need it anymore - CitC let you do views (mapping just part of the monorepo into your filesystem via FUSE) since about 2013, and then that functionality just got built into Piper. When I returned in 2020 you'd have a file at the top of your source tree that included all the relevant file mappings as well as any Blaze flags needed to build the project, and you could just point your IDE at that and it'd map in just what you need.
The history of Google's relationship to version control is even more interesting than editors - it went from CVS in 1998 to Perforce (P4) in 2000, then gcheckout and g4 in ~2006, then OverlayFS was invented in 2008, git5 came out in 2009, CitC obsoleted OverlayFS in ~2012, Piper built this all into the VCS in ~2013-2014, while I was gone from 2014-2020 apparently we got hg and jujutsu frameworks, and then when I got back in 2020 you'd just check out a .blazeproject from your IDE and everything would magically work. Many of these started as 20% projects (I used to have lunch with the guy who invented OverlayFS; interesting character and one of the best programmers I knew) and then got folded into the "official" way of doing things once grassroot adoption showed the execs that this was how people really wanted to work.
"the advantages of having a single, extensible platform become even more obvious"
-- imagine the impact that could be unlocked if we got the Android and Chromium workflows into CiderV/Critique!
The article is framed around "all Googlers" but there is still a very large contingent of Googlers who cannot use these tools.
I would imagine Android development, with its reliance on simulators for local UI testing, is pretty complicated to shoehorn into a web-based IDE? I think cloud-based IDEs would only really work for anything for which a text or web-based UI suffices. (Which is already quite a lot: that covers code, logs and web pages.)
For anything with native UIs, I suppose you could "remote desktop" into an app or a simulator running in the cloud but at that point you might as well run that locally and cut out all the issues introduced by networking.
The last year I’ve been doing all my dev on a vscode VM thingy my company set up. It’s just been getting better and better. It’s like local dev but, tbh, better. It’s at the point where I don’t even install dev tooling locally any more at all. My computer is just a thin client.
The aspect I miss is the distributed compilation hinted at in the article. I remember back at the end of 1990s using distcc and things, but that never seemed to happen in the Java world and the tooling like maven etc is structured to make everything one long dependent chain. Shame.
Our bazel system is full of custom skylark code so understanding the build means effectively reading a bunch of ad-hoc code written with varying degrees of competence and with confusing dependencies. I’m kinda ashamed I don’t have a deep understanding of a tool I use daily - but every time I try reading the documentation I quickly give up.
The most amazing thing to me about Cider-V was that Cider (without the V) actually went away after a relatively short amount of time, when virtually every other internal service that is officially EOL-ed lives on essentially forever.
Man in building Tritium[1] I have always used the analogy that developers would never program in a web-based IDE. Thus, lawyers would never live in a web-based legal IDE either. In exchange for that we’ve paid the onboarding price of trying to get desktop software installed to even run a demo. This is super timely to push us back towards a reality that web may be viable.
That most engineers use the same IDE at Google allows the company to collect a huge amount of telemetry about what features they are using, how often, and how much. Quite similar to the entire codebase being in a single repo, it allows a certain visibility into what is happening that just isn't possible other places.
When Google wanted engineers to use AI features, it turned them on in Cider-V by default. And if you turned them off, later updates would turn them back on. This is very good for your adoption metrics, but might not tell you exactly what you want to know about engineer happiness.
Such a dominant IDE also allows management to ignore the long-tail of users who aren't using it.
Visibility doesn't always get you value though. See the many companies that unify their ticketing to something like Jira, and end up running reports on in. The actual accuracy of the aggregates is rarely great, and instead leads to people doing "jira optimization" to make reports look good.
I once worked at a place where VPs were looking at sprint burndown charts, and asked what happened if the line didn't look a lot like the line expected by JIRA. The telemetry is therefore often a curse, as any metric becomes a target. How many companies today have KPIs about having automated code reviews, which are then ignored by the devs, because said reviews are just wrong on almost everything?
The learnings of Seeing Like A State don't apply just to governments.
> a team dedicated to the IntelliJ integration was formed around 2015
I don't know which team that was, but to add to that, official support for IntelliJ at Google started quite a bit earlier. I was the second person to join a team writing IntelliJ plugins. We wrote a Blaze plugin not too long after Blaze launched, as it was becoming more popular.
Google tells me that Blaze launched in 2006, so I think it must have been 2007 or 2008.
I'm not sure about the dates.
At some point (2014?), the use of IntelliJ was discouraged in favor of Eclipse. One year later or so, the decision was reversed and the effort focused on IntelliJ (and Eclipse were considered deprecated).
Although the tool is internal, a lot of information about it is not confidential.
As the team had to collaborate with the VSCode team, we got clearance for sharing information about it.
The screenshots in the article were posted publicly on GitHub (in vscode issues). You can also find screenshots in https://research.google/blog/smart-paste-for-context-aware-a...
More generally, a lot has been communicated on developer infrastructure at Google.
I was surprised to read that Chromebook use at Google was common for engineers. Even if developing remotely I had assumed they'd opt for the most powerful machine possible.
Very little development in Google3 happens locally. You aren't even allowed to keep the source code on your local disk, and this is true no matter what OS it runs. (Android and Chromium are different though.)
You have access to an extremely powerful remote workstation that from a UI perspective functions almost identically to a local workstation, via Chrome Remote Desktop. Plus, no one builds things locally, even on that machine. There is a huge, absolutely amazing distributed build system that everyone uses for everything. (Again, Android and Chromium are different.)
So you don't really need a powerful local machine. I held out for a long time--there were a lot of growing pains in the early days. But eventually it got really, really good.
I can understand Android (including the Linux kernel) being "too big" and "too separate" to go into Google3, but why Chromium? When it was forked from KHTML/WebKit it was probably not that big compared to the rest of Google's codebase.
It's a monorepo, which is a bunch of libraries (in this case, the code for most Google products) in a single repository. Those libraries can have dependencies on each other.
One is a framework called Wiz, which renders the frontend for a bunch of Google web apps. You can imagine that the Wiz team might want to refactor an API, but not have to worry about different apps using different versions. In a monorepo, they can just find all the callsites and update them in the same commit that makes the API change. There's no package.json in google3 - everything builds from HEAD. Therefore, the commit that makes a breaking change is also the commit that fixes the would-be breakage.
This architecture evolved. Google used to use Perforce, which was a common commercial version control system before Git. Google had to figure out how to express the dependencies between packages in the monorepo (which can be in different languages with different build tools). They eventually created Bazel, which expresses those dependencies and orchestrates their build tools.
Build orchestration took a few attempts. Google3 is the third version of the monorepo, that is, the one that uses Bazel for dependency management.
For most of my time here I used exclusively Chrome OS, and switched to it for personal use as well. My daily driver for years was a bright red Samsung Chromebook Galaxy (the first gen with the actual metal case). Literally none of my work is local, and it could run Secure Shell, Cider-V, and Docs as installed PWAs with their own taskbar items, etc. It was glorious.
When it finally failed in the most annoying way possible (the touch screen, which I do not use, started creating phantom clicks in the upper right corner of the display) I went looking for another Chromebook that was light, powerful, and well-built. Finding none, I now use MacBook Air and weep for the time I lose every time it needs an OS update.
How common? I'd wager most people still use a mac, followed second, but far by regular goobuntu laptops. Chromebooks goes 3rd because Windows is practically banned.
FWIW I don't think this is accurate (was kinda true in the 2010s?). I wouldn't be surprised if it's almost easier to get windows laptop than linux one now.
When I joined, I started with a MacBook and lost it within three months :(
Afterwards I was issued a 12" Pixelbook and it was surprisingly much more usable than I had expected! I could ssh into a Linux box for running builds and tests. Cider worked perfectly. It was snappy enough to serve as a thin client even on a 4K screen.
Chromebooks are pretty much only good as thin clients, so much so that when I have the money I plan on building a powerful rackmount workstation and connecting to it via chromebook/box
I do most of my development on a MacBook air and a Chromebook. The ~only thing I do from my local machine is ssh into a beefy workstation and use chrome.
From what I'd heard contractors get issued as little as a Pixel tab and dock? Everything else is in the cloud (either gLinux desktops or cloud shells) AFAIK.
The biggest question on my mind is how the use of Cider V is being affected by the officially ordained Antigravity.
Is the trendline starting to show that its adopting more Antigravity style tooling? or is this causing some sort of rift?
If you are very into agentic coding then in 2026 you're using Antigravity. But if you are less into it Cider-V has a slightly less powerful (e.g. no web browser harness, no multi-agent parallelism) version that is backed by the same implementation. Since both are built on VSCode this is ~ trivial.
In my experience, antigravity IDE is much less seemless compared to Cider-V. I completely moved to using web-based antigravity for the agent and using cider-v to make manual changes and viewing code.
Was there 2009-2014 and then again 2020-2026. I think there are a lot of aspects of IDE use and culture at Google that this post omits.
My recollection from 2009-2011 is that emacs and vim were the dominant editors (just as the TV show Silicon Valley depicted), and there was a decent-sized minority using Eclipse and Intellij, both of which had official support for Google tooling. The command line still largely ruled though, even though the official Google developer workstation was Goobuntu, Google-flavored Ubuntu. This reflected the overall developer population of the time.
I think Cider actually was invented a little earlier than the article describes. I have vague memories of some engineers experimenting with web-based IDEs that would integrated directly with Critique (the code-review software) as early as 2013-2014. Its use was not widespread when I left in 2014; there was still the impression that it wasn't powerful enough for daily driving.
When I came back in 2020, emacs/vim use was much lower, again probably reflecting differences in the general population of developers. Many more of the developers had been trained in the post-2010 developer ecosystem of VSCode, IntelliJ, etc, and this was reflected in tool usage at Google too. I'd say IntelliJ was the dominant IDE, with Cider a close second and Cider-V just starting to take market share. You still had to pry emacs and vim from a grizzled old veteran's hands.
By 2022 I'd transferred to an Android team, and Android Studio with Blaze was the dominant IDE, even as general IntelliJ usage in the company was falling. Cider just didn't have the same Android-specific support. Company-wide Cider-V was growing the fastest, taking market share from both IntelliJ and Cider-V.
By 2024 Cider-V was dominant and there started to be a concerted push to standardize on it, particularly since new AI agent tools were coming out and they couldn't be supported on all editors that Googlers wanted to use.
As of my departure in 2026, the company-wide push was to standardize on Antigravity [1], which, as I understand it, won a turf war within the developer tools org and got blessed as the "official" Google AI coding agent. This also has the effect of concentrating developer time dogfooding Google's external AI coding offering, which hopefully should improve its quality. There's still significant Cider-V usage, but it's dropping, and execs are pushing Antigravity hard.
How many new googlers use vim or emacs do you think? I can imagine at least a small amount of new vim people since vim will always be popular, but I would love to know if more than a handful of new googlers a year use emacs
I joined gdm recently, and previously used (neo)vim exclusively. Begrudgingly Cider-V is very, very good. It might be possible to get by without it, but the system is so locked down you’re going to make a lot of sacrifices. (very few authorised extensions, codebase is so large it’s going to break whatever tools your used to using anyway, no git)
I’m well thinking I may as well trade my brick of an m5 pro for a 13” chromebook, it’s a strange time.
I've switched to emacs and I no longer use IDEs. This is because I do all my edits, as a personal policy, via LLM. I mostly use emacs for magit (I work on a git-on-borg repo).
I don't think so, I think they forked VS Code directly or possibly forked Windsurf which forked VS Code. Hence the turf war and internal controversy; a lot of the effort on Cider-V got dropped on the floor, right at the height of Cider-V's popularity when they were getting large amounts of features.
Duckie does still exist, and is probably one of the most used (and useful) AI tools at Google. Yes, it's just a Gemini wrapper with access to all the internal documentation. I wasn't doing daily development when I left so I don't know if it ever got into Cider-V.
Thanks, I found all of the internal tooling stuff fascinating. I don't think there was a CLI or Cider-V AI coding tool then, so engineers I knew were using Duckie to code, hence why I wondered if it got integrated.
Cider-V is very nice. It's VSCode so all the extensions just work - Vim mode, themes, etc.
It's also nice that it stores all my preferences in the cloud, so switching machines is seamless (helpful when my macbook broke a couple weeks ago and I had to use a loaner chromebook for a day).
It's also well integrated with google3 and codesearch, and seamlessly runs tests on remote machines with tmux integration and all.
Not all of google tooling is my favorite (like their source control), but the IDE is great.
Meanwhile Google acquired windsurf, released antigravity, and recently handicapped it for Google business workspace users by removing the AI Ultra plan for workspace. So the only real way to use antigravity is either being a Google employee or using a personal account and AI Ultra.
https://knowledge.workspace.google.com/admin/gemini/ai-ultra...
It was a sad surprise last week when we tried to upgrade the workspace AI plan for some of our team members to Ultra and it was gone. We're moving to Claude/Codex.
I can't imagine people enjoying web based IDEs. I used to work for a company that has everything made internally, including IDE -- they used the same method OP described -- using VSCode on web. The experience is horrible.
I guess maybe it was fancy back in mid 2010s, but my experience was a couple of years ago.
The advantages of a single platform are as obvious as the disadvantages. In that they are often whatever you want to frame them as for a narrative.
I do think Google will continue to get results out of their tooling, as long as they are investing in the tooling. But that is not zero cost. Is it worth it for what they are doing? Largely seems to be.
But it isn't like they are that much more successful at software projects than any other company? They are still largely an ads company, no?
Google is an ads company with a large amount of infrastructure to back it up.
Sure, the money is mostly in ads, but serving searches, AI, youtube, and all the rest at the scale Google does it requires a technical tour-de-force. Does Google do it better than everyone? Absolutely not. But it does it better than many.
Certainly it isn't the _only_ way to do it--other companies also manage to do it. But not all that many at the same scale. It's an existence proof that you can.
Most of what they do really really well, though, is accomplished by massive amounts of spending. That isn't a knock on it.
Consider that they spend more on trying to build up and support this central IDE than most companies dream of losing in productivity to not having this.
> But it isn't like they are that much more successful at software projects than any other company? They are still largely an ads company, no?
They have a ton of other software in 2026. And they have a pretty diverse (and diversifying) income stream today. Like 30-40% from non-ads.
Is it worth it? That’s for them to say, but they can ramp up cloud services at scale pretty fast as a core competency.
I mean, ads is 73% of revenue. Of the rest, ~60% is Cloud, ~35% is hardware and subscriptions and app store fees.
So, sure, lots of spots for software there. But still nothing that would make me think of them as a software company. Or, worse, a lot of software that I don't have a strongly favorable view on. :D
> But it isn't like [Google] are that much more successful at software projects than any other company?
I re-read this several times trying to figure out where the irony was hidden. But... it's not there?
Do they have more success in software products than other companies, though? Most of the software many of us know from them, were acquisitions. They still do heavy acquisitions. Notable that they have double the acquisitions of Amazon. They are on par with IBM. A colossal amount of money spent to make things happen.
So, again, are they that much more successful at software than other companies? They have more hilarious flops than any other company.
Don't get me wrong. I still use some of the stuff. I don't hate them. I don't even think they are particularly bad at things. I just don't think they are any more successful than other software companies. Specifically at the software side of it.
I had to laugh we he said it took a dozen people a couple years. That's a terribly small investment relative to the leverage over developer productivity, and pales in comparison to what eBay, IBM et al spent in similar large but specialized developer populations for integrated tooling.
I'd like to hear the perspective of the developer/user; the IDE provider has some incentive to take credit and imply high utilization reflects success rather than Google policy.
I'm interested in how tooling conditions developer expectations more broadly. I'd love to see a comparison of Linux OS development (all local+open+git, open but contributor hierarchy) vs Google (monorepo+required tooling, pre-allocated authority) from someone who's done both.
There's more history than this. Disclaimer: Xoogler (2010-2017).
When I first started the environment you used depended entirely on language. In the C++ and Python space, there was the vim and emacs divide. With Java it was more complicated. Some still used vim/emacs but a lot of people used Eclipse.
Now Eclipse was a real problem at Google because of the source control system. Java IDEs are primarily built to import binaries, specifically jars. In the outside world, these dependencies are managed via Ant (very early days), Maven/Gradle or the like.
At Google there's a mono-repo (Perforce/Piper) and you check out parts of it locally and rely on the rest via a network connection (to SrcFS IIRC, it's been awhile). This was neat because you could edit a file locally and the dependencies would just recompile (via Blaze).
So for Eclipse a whole lot of initialization had to be done and the IDE would fall over. A lot. It had a team of ~10 working on it at one point. Then somebody did a 20% project called magicjar. Magicjar took a Perforce client and built all the dependencies as jars that could be imported directly without parsing the entire source tree (which was usually huge). This made it possible, even preferred, to use IntelliJ, which is what I did. Magicjar was great.
Other people actually made CLion work reasonably well with C++ too. That was nice. This was a much bigger undertaking with many more corner cases just given how C++ works (ie headers and templates).
So checking out a client was relatively heavyweight, even with a minimal local tree. And, if you worked on Google3, you had to do this a lot. You might need to do a config file change. This was the real starting point for Cider because it was way nicer to do config file changes with it.
Obviously I don't know where all this went from there. VS Studio as a Cider frontend? Ok, that was news to me. Engineers being unhappy when things change and when the slightest thing works differently is the least surprising thing I've ever heard.
Oh it's worth adding that in my time many people didn't use Perforce (P4) directly. They used somebody else's project, which was a Git frontend for it, called Git5. I believe it was already being deprecated while I was still there. But Git5 modelled a P4 change as a branch so you could play around with your Git commits locally and then squash them into a single P4 change. I actually liked this a lot.
We've moved on from Git5. Although it was a pain, I kind of liked that Git5 made the monorepo less monolithic to my editor.
Do you mean local checkouts? There's a similar workflow with at least mercurial? Dunno about jujutsu.
You don't really need it anymore - CitC let you do views (mapping just part of the monorepo into your filesystem via FUSE) since about 2013, and then that functionality just got built into Piper. When I returned in 2020 you'd have a file at the top of your source tree that included all the relevant file mappings as well as any Blaze flags needed to build the project, and you could just point your IDE at that and it'd map in just what you need.
The history of Google's relationship to version control is even more interesting than editors - it went from CVS in 1998 to Perforce (P4) in 2000, then gcheckout and g4 in ~2006, then OverlayFS was invented in 2008, git5 came out in 2009, CitC obsoleted OverlayFS in ~2012, Piper built this all into the VCS in ~2013-2014, while I was gone from 2014-2020 apparently we got hg and jujutsu frameworks, and then when I got back in 2020 you'd just check out a .blazeproject from your IDE and everything would magically work. Many of these started as 20% projects (I used to have lunch with the guy who invented OverlayFS; interesting character and one of the best programmers I knew) and then got folded into the "official" way of doing things once grassroot adoption showed the execs that this was how people really wanted to work.
There are mercurial and jujutsu frontends now.
I still have nightmares about eclipse sometimes.
"the advantages of having a single, extensible platform become even more obvious" -- imagine the impact that could be unlocked if we got the Android and Chromium workflows into CiderV/Critique!
The article is framed around "all Googlers" but there is still a very large contingent of Googlers who cannot use these tools.
I would imagine Android development, with its reliance on simulators for local UI testing, is pretty complicated to shoehorn into a web-based IDE? I think cloud-based IDEs would only really work for anything for which a text or web-based UI suffices. (Which is already quite a lot: that covers code, logs and web pages.)
For anything with native UIs, I suppose you could "remote desktop" into an app or a simulator running in the cloud but at that point you might as well run that locally and cut out all the issues introduced by networking.
The last year I’ve been doing all my dev on a vscode VM thingy my company set up. It’s just been getting better and better. It’s like local dev but, tbh, better. It’s at the point where I don’t even install dev tooling locally any more at all. My computer is just a thin client.
The aspect I miss is the distributed compilation hinted at in the article. I remember back at the end of 1990s using distcc and things, but that never seemed to happen in the Java world and the tooling like maven etc is structured to make everything one long dependent chain. Shame.
You want bazel. Once you've internalized the bazel (blaze) system, you want all builds and tests to work that way.
How do you internalize it?
Our bazel system is full of custom skylark code so understanding the build means effectively reading a bunch of ad-hoc code written with varying degrees of competence and with confusing dependencies. I’m kinda ashamed I don’t have a deep understanding of a tool I use daily - but every time I try reading the documentation I quickly give up.
The most amazing thing to me about Cider-V was that Cider (without the V) actually went away after a relatively short amount of time, when virtually every other internal service that is officially EOL-ed lives on essentially forever.
It would be nice if they extended their external services the same behavior…
Man in building Tritium[1] I have always used the analogy that developers would never program in a web-based IDE. Thus, lawyers would never live in a web-based legal IDE either. In exchange for that we’ve paid the onboarding price of trying to get desktop software installed to even run a demo. This is super timely to push us back towards a reality that web may be viable.
[1] https://tritium.legal
The name Cider is not from Cloud IDE, stems from Critique (the code review), which is addressed via cr/ - Cider is the IDE in Critique: cIDEr.
As far as I remember, this "IDE in cr/" explanation was found afterwards.
The thing I most love about Cider-V is that moving between it and (often remote) VSCode when working outside google3 becomes mostly painless.
That most engineers use the same IDE at Google allows the company to collect a huge amount of telemetry about what features they are using, how often, and how much. Quite similar to the entire codebase being in a single repo, it allows a certain visibility into what is happening that just isn't possible other places.
When Google wanted engineers to use AI features, it turned them on in Cider-V by default. And if you turned them off, later updates would turn them back on. This is very good for your adoption metrics, but might not tell you exactly what you want to know about engineer happiness.
Such a dominant IDE also allows management to ignore the long-tail of users who aren't using it.
Visibility doesn't always get you value though. See the many companies that unify their ticketing to something like Jira, and end up running reports on in. The actual accuracy of the aggregates is rarely great, and instead leads to people doing "jira optimization" to make reports look good.
I once worked at a place where VPs were looking at sprint burndown charts, and asked what happened if the line didn't look a lot like the line expected by JIRA. The telemetry is therefore often a curse, as any metric becomes a target. How many companies today have KPIs about having automated code reviews, which are then ignored by the devs, because said reviews are just wrong on almost everything?
The learnings of Seeing Like A State don't apply just to governments.
> a team dedicated to the IntelliJ integration was formed around 2015
I don't know which team that was, but to add to that, official support for IntelliJ at Google started quite a bit earlier. I was the second person to join a team writing IntelliJ plugins. We wrote a Blaze plugin not too long after Blaze launched, as it was becoming more popular.
Google tells me that Blaze launched in 2006, so I think it must have been 2007 or 2008.
I'm not sure about the dates. At some point (2014?), the use of IntelliJ was discouraged in favor of Eclipse. One year later or so, the decision was reversed and the effort focused on IntelliJ (and Eclipse were considered deprecated).
Was there never a detour via Eclipse Theia? I thought it might have had some traction internally, since Cloud Shell is based on it.
I am very opinionated, but I really don't like Cider V. I have been using neovim at Google since 2017 and it's been great.
I can't say for sure because I never used it, but neovim is the jam.
same! how do you deal with cloudtop latency though? sometimes my neovim is very slow and laggy because of the remote connection / network file system
I use a workstation specifically to improve latency. Needed to get approval at some point to get a refresh though.
like a workstation under your desk? is the latency bad when you remote access it not in the office?
Yeah, under my desk. I rarely remote which is a good excuse for me to disconnect from work anyways.
Ever tried SSH'ing via "Mosh"? https://mosh.org
It amuses me that Google's internal IDE was built by Microsoft.
How can they post this obviously internal thing from Google? How can they get clearance from security/IP?
Although the tool is internal, a lot of information about it is not confidential.
As the team had to collaborate with the VSCode team, we got clearance for sharing information about it. The screenshots in the article were posted publicly on GitHub (in vscode issues). You can also find screenshots in https://research.google/blog/smart-paste-for-context-aware-a...
More generally, a lot has been communicated on developer infrastructure at Google.
OP is an ex-Googler
Xoogler. We have slack and everything!
Luckily, they still support the text editor + CLI tools workflow so I can still use Emacs effectively.
I was surprised to read that Chromebook use at Google was common for engineers. Even if developing remotely I had assumed they'd opt for the most powerful machine possible.
Very little development in Google3 happens locally. You aren't even allowed to keep the source code on your local disk, and this is true no matter what OS it runs. (Android and Chromium are different though.)
You have access to an extremely powerful remote workstation that from a UI perspective functions almost identically to a local workstation, via Chrome Remote Desktop. Plus, no one builds things locally, even on that machine. There is a huge, absolutely amazing distributed build system that everyone uses for everything. (Again, Android and Chromium are different.)
So you don't really need a powerful local machine. I held out for a long time--there were a lot of growing pains in the early days. But eventually it got really, really good.
I can understand Android (including the Linux kernel) being "too big" and "too separate" to go into Google3, but why Chromium? When it was forked from KHTML/WebKit it was probably not that big compared to the rest of Google's codebase.
Could you even put all of google3 on local disk if it were allowed?!? You'd need quite a RAID array. I suspect it'd be almost impossible in practice.
There's no reason to pull the entire repo just to build one project. Do you pull all of GitHub to your disk?
From the user interface perspective though, it does essentially look like you've pulled all of google3 into your disk.
What is Google3?
It's a monorepo, which is a bunch of libraries (in this case, the code for most Google products) in a single repository. Those libraries can have dependencies on each other.
One is a framework called Wiz, which renders the frontend for a bunch of Google web apps. You can imagine that the Wiz team might want to refactor an API, but not have to worry about different apps using different versions. In a monorepo, they can just find all the callsites and update them in the same commit that makes the API change. There's no package.json in google3 - everything builds from HEAD. Therefore, the commit that makes a breaking change is also the commit that fixes the would-be breakage.
This architecture evolved. Google used to use Perforce, which was a common commercial version control system before Git. Google had to figure out how to express the dependencies between packages in the monorepo (which can be in different languages with different build tools). They eventually created Bazel, which expresses those dependencies and orchestrates their build tools.
Build orchestration took a few attempts. Google3 is the third version of the monorepo, that is, the one that uses Bazel for dependency management.
The mono repo that holds most source code (pronounced google-tree?) It's referenced in the OP.
I've never heard that pronunciation.
What did you think it was pronounced as?
"google-three" which it obviously is?
For most of my time here I used exclusively Chrome OS, and switched to it for personal use as well. My daily driver for years was a bright red Samsung Chromebook Galaxy (the first gen with the actual metal case). Literally none of my work is local, and it could run Secure Shell, Cider-V, and Docs as installed PWAs with their own taskbar items, etc. It was glorious.
When it finally failed in the most annoying way possible (the touch screen, which I do not use, started creating phantom clicks in the upper right corner of the display) I went looking for another Chromebook that was light, powerful, and well-built. Finding none, I now use MacBook Air and weep for the time I lose every time it needs an OS update.
How common? I'd wager most people still use a mac, followed second, but far by regular goobuntu laptops. Chromebooks goes 3rd because Windows is practically banned.
> Windows is practically banned.
FWIW I don't think this is accurate (was kinda true in the 2010s?). I wouldn't be surprised if it's almost easier to get windows laptop than linux one now.
When I joined, I started with a MacBook and lost it within three months :(
Afterwards I was issued a 12" Pixelbook and it was surprisingly much more usable than I had expected! I could ssh into a Linux box for running builds and tests. Cider worked perfectly. It was snappy enough to serve as a thin client even on a 4K screen.
Chromebooks are pretty much only good as thin clients, so much so that when I have the money I plan on building a powerful rackmount workstation and connecting to it via chromebook/box
Since it's mostly browser tabs, as long as you have ample memory (eg 16gb) it's good enough.
I do most of my development on a MacBook air and a Chromebook. The ~only thing I do from my local machine is ssh into a beefy workstation and use chrome.
From what I'd heard contractors get issued as little as a Pixel tab and dock? Everything else is in the cloud (either gLinux desktops or cloud shells) AFAIK.
The biggest question on my mind is how the use of Cider V is being affected by the officially ordained Antigravity. Is the trendline starting to show that its adopting more Antigravity style tooling? or is this causing some sort of rift?
If you are very into agentic coding then in 2026 you're using Antigravity. But if you are less into it Cider-V has a slightly less powerful (e.g. no web browser harness, no multi-agent parallelism) version that is backed by the same implementation. Since both are built on VSCode this is ~ trivial.
In my experience, antigravity IDE is much less seemless compared to Cider-V. I completely moved to using web-based antigravity for the agent and using cider-v to make manual changes and viewing code.
Initially Cider was branded as a light client that opened much faster than traditional IDEs.
Now, ironically with so many extensions and LLM computing, users seem to forget that they chose Cider because of its lightweight.
Everything turns into the thing it was set out to replace.
Real IDEs are built by Jetbrains.
Do Java engineer at Google not use IntelliJ?
Was there 2009-2014 and then again 2020-2026. I think there are a lot of aspects of IDE use and culture at Google that this post omits.
My recollection from 2009-2011 is that emacs and vim were the dominant editors (just as the TV show Silicon Valley depicted), and there was a decent-sized minority using Eclipse and Intellij, both of which had official support for Google tooling. The command line still largely ruled though, even though the official Google developer workstation was Goobuntu, Google-flavored Ubuntu. This reflected the overall developer population of the time.
I think Cider actually was invented a little earlier than the article describes. I have vague memories of some engineers experimenting with web-based IDEs that would integrated directly with Critique (the code-review software) as early as 2013-2014. Its use was not widespread when I left in 2014; there was still the impression that it wasn't powerful enough for daily driving.
When I came back in 2020, emacs/vim use was much lower, again probably reflecting differences in the general population of developers. Many more of the developers had been trained in the post-2010 developer ecosystem of VSCode, IntelliJ, etc, and this was reflected in tool usage at Google too. I'd say IntelliJ was the dominant IDE, with Cider a close second and Cider-V just starting to take market share. You still had to pry emacs and vim from a grizzled old veteran's hands.
By 2022 I'd transferred to an Android team, and Android Studio with Blaze was the dominant IDE, even as general IntelliJ usage in the company was falling. Cider just didn't have the same Android-specific support. Company-wide Cider-V was growing the fastest, taking market share from both IntelliJ and Cider-V.
By 2024 Cider-V was dominant and there started to be a concerted push to standardize on it, particularly since new AI agent tools were coming out and they couldn't be supported on all editors that Googlers wanted to use.
As of my departure in 2026, the company-wide push was to standardize on Antigravity [1], which, as I understand it, won a turf war within the developer tools org and got blessed as the "official" Google AI coding agent. This also has the effect of concentrating developer time dogfooding Google's external AI coding offering, which hopefully should improve its quality. There's still significant Cider-V usage, but it's dropping, and execs are pushing Antigravity hard.
[1] https://antigravity.google/
I joined in late 2015. Cider was well-known by then.
I'm a UXE, so I tend to use the same tools an external developer might. But I never got the impression that Cider was a recent development.
I can't check when Cider got started. I was probably wrong (it wasn't much used in my circles at that time), I'll update the post.
How many new googlers use vim or emacs do you think? I can imagine at least a small amount of new vim people since vim will always be popular, but I would love to know if more than a handful of new googlers a year use emacs
I joined gdm recently, and previously used (neo)vim exclusively. Begrudgingly Cider-V is very, very good. It might be possible to get by without it, but the system is so locked down you’re going to make a lot of sacrifices. (very few authorised extensions, codebase is so large it’s going to break whatever tools your used to using anyway, no git)
I’m well thinking I may as well trade my brick of an m5 pro for a 13” chromebook, it’s a strange time.
I've switched to emacs and I no longer use IDEs. This is because I do all my edits, as a personal policy, via LLM. I mostly use emacs for magit (I work on a git-on-borg repo).
Is Antigravity a Cider-V fork?
I don't think so, I think they forked VS Code directly or possibly forked Windsurf which forked VS Code. Hence the turf war and internal controversy; a lot of the effort on Cider-V got dropped on the floor, right at the height of Cider-V's popularity when they were getting large amounts of features.
Duckie does still exist, and is probably one of the most used (and useful) AI tools at Google. Yes, it's just a Gemini wrapper with access to all the internal documentation. I wasn't doing daily development when I left so I don't know if it ever got into Cider-V.
Thanks, I found all of the internal tooling stuff fascinating. I don't think there was a CLI or Cider-V AI coding tool then, so engineers I knew were using Duckie to code, hence why I wondered if it got integrated.
Okay, but what about the corgies?
Cider-V is very nice. It's VSCode so all the extensions just work - Vim mode, themes, etc.
It's also nice that it stores all my preferences in the cloud, so switching machines is seamless (helpful when my macbook broke a couple weeks ago and I had to use a loaner chromebook for a day).
It's also well integrated with google3 and codesearch, and seamlessly runs tests on remote machines with tmux integration and all.
Not all of google tooling is my favorite (like their source control), but the IDE is great.