The Frontside Podcast

Toran Billups @toranb | GitHub | Blog

Show Notes:

Resources:

Transcript:

CHARLES: Hello everybody. Welcome to The Frontside Podcast. This is Episode 55. We're broadcasting and everybody's here in Austin, although we're still remote. I am here with a really special panel today. There's me, which makes it special by default. My name is Charles Lowell. I'm a developer here at The Frontside. I'm also here with Robert De Luca, who also develops JavaScript codes at The Frontside and we have today [drum roll sound] -- I'm really, really going to work that drumroll -- Toran Billups. What's up, man?

TORAN: Hey, man. Thanks for having me. I'm really excited to be here.

CHARLES: Toran is with us today and he's going to be talking about a lot of things. He’s going to be talking about today mostly about Redux and his efforts to meld Redux and make it useful within the Ember community. But first, if you have not heard of Toran, I think the first time we'd interacted over email, Slack briefly but then when I really, really saw you for the first time was at EmberConf, I think in 2015 and he just gave the most amazing talk on Test Driven Development and really kind of the focus on you can set up your acceptance tests from the outside into really define that behavior and set out that firm shell and then actually build your application from the outside in.

You’ve really kind of been talking about that message. We like to have people on here who all about walking the walk. That’s certainly the first thing that I've noticed that you were doing in the community but then more recently, you've been playing with Redux. Not playing with Redux, actually making a concerted effort to bring this kind of pattern into Ember. I just wanted to start out, how did you jump onto that track?

TORAN: Some months after EmberConf in 2015, as you mentioned that talk was not only, probably the most well-rehearsed talk I've ever given but definitely the most well-received. I got a lot of people excited and really gave me a lot of opportunities that weren't there before that was also believe in that keynote in 2015 as when Ember 2.0 was announced. The interesting part of Ember 2.0, of course was we were using it, and it was called Ember 1.13, which actually made it really great.

At the time, I was very much excited about the stability that offered. Other folks were not as much as interested in that idea or those values, in the JavaScript community so it's really exciting. Yet at the same time, there was this new mantra that was being talked about more that I knew nothing about. It was this 'data down, actions up' idea. I still remember as much as the stability was awesome, I also started to doubt not Ember core in particular but the ideas that were being espoused by other folks around the Ember core team because I didn't really understand the value.

For instance, if I had the tree of components back then in early Ember 1.13 or 2.0 days and I had an Ember model or some kind of Ember object at the bottom of this tree, why would I not just do Ember.set. I remember, actually you may recall conversations you had with people at EmberConf around that time but there was actually varying definitions of what 'data down, actions up' meant to different people and actually never met the same thing to anyone. It was funny enough.

Because of that, it sort of drove this fear in me that I didn't know what I was talking about. I was consulting at the time so I wanted to sound like I knew what I was talking about as you probably should. You guys are in that business so you know what I mean. Because of that doubt, eventually I sort of become apathetic to really trying to understand better what 'data down, actions up' meant or how components should be constructed and really what the wider impacts of Ember 2.0 meant. Because of that, I just found myself, not really loving learning.

I felt like everything else in learning was a hyped up thing that would never happen or a hyped up thing that I didn't really understand or didn't make sense in the context of Ember at that time so I just kind of floated by. Everybody has their ebb and flows in the journey of excitement or not. For me, this was just the down moment.

One of the things, like an analogy to this is when you lose your hunger in real life, you'd be very much like losing your hunger for learning. There's this interesting hormone that your body produces when you're actually physically hungry that kind of gives you the physical symptoms like your stomach cramps that tells your brain probably should eat somewhere. When those things aren't happening or that hormones not being produced, it's often because you've quit eating yourself. If you've ever gone on a fast or something weird like that on day three, your body quits secreting this hormone so you just sort of or not hungry at all, which is kind of weird.

The same sort of thing was happening to me. If you ask a doctor or a physician, "What's the first thing I should do? I'm not hungry anymore." They'll tell you, "You just start eating." But I'm not hungry now so the same thing applied in my life and I think the first step really is just eat anyway. In this case, it was just learn something anyway even if you're not in love with learning right now. Eventually, your body will start producing this hormone, in the hunger example and for me, I just sort of got back in the flow and what came from this was a routine, which is really the second part of how you get your hunger back, not just eating once a day. I was eating three meals a day or more, especially if you haven't been eating. For me, I just set aside an hour a day, in addition to consulting work and things that would get me interested in loving learning again.

The third component to this was trying something different. At the time, of course I was just doing Ember, I pretty much had done Ember since 2012 like some of you guys and I feel like there wasn't a lot of new. There was patterns and ideas but there was anything really challenging me. That’s when I sort of looked around at the React community and I had done some React in the early days when I was super hyped up but I still feel vaguely different. Not that it's jQuery or any way but I didn't feel like this fully encompass single page out framework. The reasons I got into Ember very early on were that I wanted to build rich single page apps.

If you guys remember from the early React days, that also wasn't really the messaging with React and maybe today with View. In fact, that's kind of one of the benefits or they speak to in those communities about why you use React because you don't have to use it for your whole app. You could kind of piecemeal it in, which totally cool. You got to see it out with Ember too. But in my mind, I just wanted to build a rich JavaScript lines that could compete with the iPhone or the iPhone apps that were popular in that day.

Through this process, I started looking at React and really just kind of get back into it again, get going again. I wasn't really in love with it but I needed to try something outside of the realm I was used to. As part of that, I noticed there was this talk by Dan Abramov, I think he works for Facebook now, big in the React community, of course and he gave this talk at a conference in Europe that introduced Redux.

What’s funny, if you find out or dive deeper into that story is he actually pitched the talk, not really having built any of this and just thought, "This sounds like a great idea," and then of course the talk was accepted. Like most, he delivered on that promise and made a great talk. There are definitely courage folks to check out and I should link it to you here. We can show noted that, I'm sure.

That talk make me excited mostly because there was a lot of whiz-bang. If you guys remember any great talk you've ever seen, the talk even that I gave at EmberConf that you mentioned, Charles the thing that blew people away was this very end moment that, of course I had produced to be a great moment. In the same way, Dan during this talk introduced some new ideas or new to the JavaScript community. One of those was the tooling that can change when the state doesn't change in your application.

That got me sort of piqued my interest, in part because I was actually big test driven guy and I thought, "I won't use any of this stuff. It just seems cool. It’s a gimmick. Tester development is how you really build app." If anything I thought to disprove it by getting involved and learning a little bit more but what I instantly found was the simplicity of data changes rerender.

That sounds very high level, of course but it was almost just that simple, instead of being like how does this change to an object in my array, bubble out through notifications on the Ember side and notify the Ember change detection to rerender. Well, I'm not entirely sure so when I was start debugging that, I noticed a lot of framework code between me and the rerender. It's that's how Ember is, right? When I boiled that down in jQuery with vanilla Redux, not even using React at all, I was like, "Wow, there's just a call back. I wonder why I haven't been doing this."

CHARLES: As a single callback for a global state?

TORAN: Correct.

CHARLES: So there's no call back for every single path in your tree. You just used that one call back?

TORAN: I'll fill in for Rob here. I know he's jumping at it. You should probably define a Redux is. He’s really good at asking that question. Redux in this case, for me is just a global JavaScript object to use to hydrate your templates. They’ll give you some big spiel about state container, if you go check out the website. But for me and in this context of being on an Ember-centric sort of podcast, we already use this idea in Ember today.

If you're just feeding your templates from some high level service, it's a very similar idea in that Redux is just a single service. In the Ember case, especially you can talk about the add-on, I maintain later, but really it's just a service with a single object that will help you populate all of your components.

ROBERT: Yeah, I love Redux. I actually sort of coming into the Redux world, probably to about six to eight months ago and it was around the same thing like exploring React stuff. I share similar opinions to you as nobody really can define 'data down, actions up'. I also think that 'data down, actions up' cannot just live in the component.

In a lot of the Ember apps I worked on, there's times where I'll be looking up to get a new state and it comes in from the side and something's mutating, something that I have no idea why and where it was mutated and Redux does a really good job at helping you manage what changes and why it changed.

CHARLES: I have a question too. When you're actually using Redux, you said you got a single tree that you used to hydrate your templates. In the context of Ember, where do you maintain that single object? I assume you have one store, one instance of your Redux state per application?

TORAN: Correct. There's just a service like you imagine in the Ember data service and that holds on to really just an identity map or a single graph object that will let you pass or pull that in by injecting the service into your components if you want to do that or your route then just asking for that state.

CHARLES: Because I think that for a lot of people in the Ember community certainly, when I was kind of grappling with these ideas, the idea of having a single global object as your state seems so counterintuitive, so going to go against everything that we learned, that you have to decompose a problem into its component parts.

Obviously, Redux has an answer for that so how does that work? How do you decompose that state into saying, "I'm just interested in this kind of local state." How does local state work in Redux?

TORAN: I should define local state is state specific to the component. It doesn't need to bleed up and has no value at the global level.

CHARLES: Usually, I got two components. Let's say, I want to store both of their states in the Redux store. Obviously, component one is not interested in seeing any state that's not related to it so it's only interested in its own state and it's not interested in any of the surrounding context. How does that work? How do you connect a single component or connect a route to the store?

TORAN: There's really just a simple method on Redux -- the Redux store itself, which it says, "Give me the state." What may not sound great at first is that it say, "I will give you all the state and that is your job to pull from that or map three attributes from that whole tree into my component." Then by side effect if you're using our add-on or if you don't React-Redux, you actually subscribe then to call backs on any of those changes so if something were to be bumped, then your component is given the opportunity to rerender during that call back.

CHARLES: Now, in terms of Ember-Redux, that kind plumbing is hidden from you. You don't actually have to explicitly map that state. You can say, "I want to connect this component into the Redux store," and you're just off to the races.

ROBERT: Is there a mapStateToProps or... I don't know what that would be called in Ember-land.

TORAN: That brings about interesting point. I literally copied this API that you guys are probably looked at from the readme from this very popular project in React called React-Redux. The word that you're using, Charles is this word connect. Actually, I like that word because that's how I think about it. I want to connect the components to the single source of truth and then respond by rerendering when something changes.

The API is actually very similar on what you said, Rob. In fact, the set of mapStateToProps is just map states to computed, which is very much the same idea so instead of really defining the component like you might normally, this is where it gets a little weird for your classic Ember developer, you actually just write two functions and really only one is require.

The first one is what you're hinting at Charles, which is I want to pull from the state a set of properties and as you mentioned, the plumbing is sort of hidden, magically those are actually created as CPs or Computed Properties on your component so you can go to your HPS file, your handlebars template and say, "Oh, I took number from the global state and I'm just going to map it in this function and now I can go to my handlebars template and number," and there it is. Every time you bump number up or down, you'll get a rerun in your callback and the HPS will update.

The other function, as sort of glossed over is really just for your closure actions. If you would like to ask the store to do something and saying, "I would actually like to increment the number," then you can fire an action and the second block just does also additional magic, which just maps a closure action by letting you get this dispatched keyword.

Dispatch in a Redux context is just, "I'm going to send an action," and you can think of it almost in vanilla JavaScript terms as, "I have an event. Someone will handle this event and I'm just going to throw it up."

ROBERT: It makes its way to reducer then from there, right?

TORAN: Correct. We haven't talked too much about that process. The reducer really says, "I'm going to be given a state or the initial state, if you haven't done this yet," which would be maybe in the number scenario. I'm going to start with zero as a sensible default and then I'm going to have an action, whether that's add or subtract in this simple example and in add, I'm just going to take the state coming in, even if it starts out at zero and then do something, transform it to a new state.

In this case, actually instead of mutating something I'm actually returning to number two or to number one and you're like, "Now, we have both zero and one in kind of a timeline." If you think about this almost as the realistic stories, we're just kind of kicking a pointer to a new block of state. Every single time you come to reducer, we still have the old state and we can still walk backwards, which is how the time travel debugging works as we just flip the pointer back in time.

As you guys have talked about and I think, Charles you mentioned last year in EmberConf, the immutability story has of course a whole slew of great properties that come with it and those we haven't even obviously talked about. But hopefully I gave people a broad overview of what the reducer does. In its most simplest form, state comes and action returns a new state.

ROBERT: Yeah, in Charles's talk and his research, I got to sit next to him and watched him do that actually kind of shaped a lot of my thinking and hunger, if we want to keep that going towards doing like something that's immutable and state management in Ember. I would like to thank you, Toran for building that add-on and spearheading Redux because Redux is pretty awesome for state management.

CHARLES: By the way, you did in that call out the analogy for hunger. I really, really, really like that. It's an important tidbit not to miss is that when you are feeling those kind of doldrums of development. I know I was actually ironically feeling that about the same time in 2015, feeling of in a funk because I feel like there was a lot of stuff coming down the pipe like with 'data down, actions up' but no good examples of where we've actually seen this in practice.

I think Redux is an actual implementation of 'data down, actions up' so I think it's fantastic that you were able to go and seek inspiration there like, "We've got this message of the way things that ought to be doing with the applications ought to be built." But we don't actually have any concrete examples that we can look to. I think the Redux actually is almost the most pure version of that 'data down, actions up'.

I guess my next question is given that you've got this global store, you've got a way to connect components. I assume there are other ways to dispatch actions from within your Ember application like what are the patterns that you're seeing emerge around this? We've talked about how you would use them in components. Suppose my tree of components gets pretty complex, how do I manage that to kind of the passing of data down? Do parent components play any role in the data that their subcomponents see? Is each component connecting directly to the store? I'm just kind of curious where that balance lies and how things are kind of playing out?

TORAN: There's really two points in your bigger question. One that I was going to try out of you but then you kept going. That was really around side effects. How do you actually dispatch or make changes, requests changes and see the flow and we could talk about that really starts out briefly with a Promise based approach.

With Redux, most people don't know but it's basically like asynchronous flow. Dispatch would normally be like asynchronous action where you're sort of blocking and then doing, transform and getting it back. In the simplest ways, you see there is this tool or this add-on, Redux-thunk, which you can use Promises now and async will still work as if it were synchronous essentially by firing dispatch up and letting your reducer do the work.

I think that is a great introductory because especially as Ember developers, we've got a lot of experience with Promises so this is just the same thing. In most of the demos I've done and if you check out the read me, there's like a full Yelp Clone example. It’s using this approach because it's a little bit more familiar to most folks.

CHARLES: Just to clarify what would happen there is you're essentially getting a new state transition when every Promise resolves or rejects. If it's rejects, that's a state transition. If it resolves, that's a state transition. The next Promise that resolves is another state transition. Is that fair to say?

TORAN: Assuming you want to alter and use that top level state, of course you could reject or resolve and just not even bother with the top level store. We kind of skipped over some of the benefits and we could just roll back to that briefly. Why would you use top level stores at all? You mentioned earlier and it kind of seems counterintuitive. This is basic global variable. That’s what we're talking about.

In the Ember example, I think it's actually sort of not weird because if you guys, your Ember data in its earlier form or even today, it really very much is that. We have this one cache of objects related or otherwise and we pass those around. They are a global object or almost like a global variable. The downside of that in my experience has been that is truly mutable and actually everything is driven by mutating those and then having callbacks or denotify property change drive your template updates. That is not the process with Redux, of course. It feels more explicit, where I can actually go look up kind of a tree or look up table of actions and see exactly what's going to happen.

Then also to your second half of the question, which is like how was the components wired up? How do they map? I actually uses an interesting pattern which isn't specific to Ember-Redux or Redux, which is to create a seam in my components now where I have truly HTML CSS components. Separating those from the components and know about the data and the closure action story. Forgetting Redux for a moment and all of this actually made my regular Ember much better because I started to produce this component that would connect to a Ember data store, provide closure actions to send up in the most pure 'data down, actions up' sense and then I would connect it using the yield block, which credits to you and other folks at EmberConf that you, Charles kind of talked me into this because I was a espousing this idea but I didn't really understand that I would actually nest within this parent, the HTML component that would just be handed the properties to render.

When we do this, again it still is I think a better pattern even if you're not using Redux but when we did it and I when I started with Redux, the only thing that really gets me in hot water is when people see this and they're like, "Oh, so this is the first thing that comes down from the routed controllers template. Then there's always this brief moment of like, "I'm not sure what to say. I don't want to predict the future and I'm not trying to be Mr Routable Components here."

But for me, most of my controller templates are just a landing page for the component tree to begin. Again, that's not me trying to hacking the route or anything to say, "I want to use this controller as a routed to component. I think eventually when that RFC lands, this will look different, anyway so I'm not trying to have people do things really outside of the Ember ecosystem or outside of the norm." But from there, I feel like still just landing into a component, allows you this composition which is supposed is the real value of the components structure. They are too primitive to build pages and then eventually full apps.

ROBERT: So if we want to drop parallel, it's container versus presentation components, right?

TORAN: Yes and that of course, again stolen from, not me probably stolen from someone else in the 70s. But you know, Dan Abramov is accredited to bringing that idea about in React. Actually I like the idea because let's pretend I had done this pattern in 2013. Now, it's using Ember data or simple store or Erik Bryn's Ember model, something like that. Then eventually, the community start shifting to something else. It could be MobX, it could be Redux and whatever the case, I could just very easily swap out those connected components that have no HTML CSS. The data source changes and all the presentation components do not know. They do not change.

There is actually an iterable story to refactor through, an update like that normally is kind of a [inaudible]. If you have ever done PHP in the early days or at least my PHP experience in 1999 -- no offense to PHP today -- was that everything was so stuck together or so couple that I could never refactor anything out of it. Of course, you probably do this in a consulting space as I have, where he first thing on a messy project is actually making those scenes in the application anyway to allow you to upgrade incrementally. This process is just more of an upfront thought and I don't think it's really taken hold than it needs to in the Ember community. It's just something I was experimenting with and I'm finding a lot of value because I think the connection of the data source is a different activity than HTML.

ROBERT: I think it also holds a lot of value.

CHARLES: I think it holds a lot of value. I think there's a dawning awareness of this. In your comment, I actually thought of two blog posts for EmberMap, which I was just reading this morning. One was talking about kind of the safety of the herd and don't worry so much about controllers versus radical components like use your controllers, use your components. Don’t worry about it too much. It’ll get sorted out. I definitely agree with that. Although, you definitely want to experiment when you're experiencing particular pain around something.

But then, the next thing which I think came out yesterday was talking about basically components for managing side effects, which I think is an unfortunate name because I think side effects is a tainted word. But basically, the idea is having presentation components and container components and the container components are responsible for managing the state. I think that idea is valuable in of itself and I hope that it takes root. I think that's something that you're doing, something that we're doing and as people kind of realize it, it does take root, just kind of by virtue of its own value.

Let me summarize if I understand it correctly. As part of these job, you've got these container components and their job is, I like the term that you used, creating a seam. Their job in the Redux world is to take a slice of that global state. You have these components whose responsibility is taking a slice of that global state and presenting that global state to HTML CSS aka presentation components that lie underneath them. Is that a fair assessment?

Then if that's so, I've got a second part to that. I just want to make sure I'm understanding it correctly. For components that are further downstream on that tree, do you ever switch back to data containers like you switch between data components and presentation components and then back to data components and then to presentation components and kind of back and forth and back and forth on down the tree? Or do you mostly see it as one-kind of container component on top and then presentation components all the way down?

TORAN: It's a great question. I think that still needs a fair bit of experience in the Ember community because the patterns I pulled from the source code I read a lot is mostly from the React ecosystem. Because of that, there's a very split view or a different view in that community on routing. We may share some of those views in Ember but I think for the most part, we assume routing actually and that's one of the tricky part to answer your question.

This is a broad statement so I'm likely wrong in every context but I don't love to be creating these data components that don't get routed to if I can help it. I'm sure there are situations that have been really complex, places where you just have to make, no route here because I don't want change the URL for instance and I'm just going to make this thing like a routed to component with no URL to get me here.

But for the most part, I treat the entry point to this route and when I land on this route at this time, it's appropriate to ask for the data likely coming from the model hook in the route. In fact, all that's still the same. That’s also where it's a little weird. If you've ever seen a full component tree in a React app, they may not have a router at all. In that situation I think, Redux was in particular even better because you don't have to pass from the top app component, the same props or the same data all the way down that tree. In fact, if you read documentation about why Redux in the React ecosystem they'll say, "It gives you this place where we can create a little shim and then ask for the data down here in the [inaudible] mode. You don't have to pass it from the app to that, to that."

I see those benefits but in Ember we don't really get as much from that. In fact, they still tell people who challenged the global state idea that not everything maybe should be a global state but you give up some things by doing that. The first one I would say, which I think is the most valuable for anyone doing vanilla Ember with Ember data or someone experimenting with React or Redux. Or the case I'm most interested in, the audience I'm after which is Redux in Ember, which is do you actually need to have that state in one place.

The prime example of this that is the greatest use case is master detail. What I mean by that is you have a list of things and when someone drills into one of those, you can also see that at the same time. There’s really two choices you can make here. One is I'm going to have two separate data sources to feed two separate components so the list will go get its data and then the detail won't even use that data at all. Just go get its own data.

In that case, you may up against a problem where you need to synchronize at some point and here's the tradeoff. Either synchronize the two separate states or you have a single source of truth. That’s a real benefit I think of Redux for the most part. It’s like the broad, "Do I want deterministic rendering?" We've all heard the joke about the Facebook nav bar that's like, "You have one message," and you're like, "No, I just answered it down here." Well, that's a different component so the joke is like, "Oh, Redux must be working. We have one up here but I've already read the message." You know? Someone obviously is in charge of synchronizing in those sort of examples. Maybe not just doing it well or they run up against an issue synchronizing that.

My experience doing back end development, colors this for me. What I rather have three databases and they kind of synchronize the state across them or I rather have the one postgres or SQL server database that is the source of truth so that when I render something to a customer, I can guarantee that it's not in a transition to be synchronized. It is the source of truth.

CHARLES: Right, I really like that and I think the point that I take from that is that, and again this speaks to people who might be internally reacting to this idea of a global state is that you actually do have a global state always in your UI, whether you acknowledge it or not. It's composed of all the other distributed states that are sprinkled around your application so if you take an approach like Redux, you're kind of acknowledging that upfront that at any given time, I do in fact have a global state. I might as well deal with that explicitly. That’s kind of a key innovation.

I also like what you said too about kind of treating the router in Ember really leaning on the router as a good way to partition your data or drill down into a sub-piece of that global state. Inside Ember-Redux, are there explicit hooks for dealing with the Redux store inside your routes?

TORAN: Yeah, that's that one that gets me the most trouble. When I see a blog post and memes that are all about the herd lately, can't help but feel like they're pointed directly at me because of some of these new ideas.

CHARLES: Toran, I'm just telling you. This is a safe space. We believe in innovation here. You’re okay.

TORAN: Yeah.

CHARLES: Let me add-on that. I didn't mean that as a knock to you. I do think they call this out of the end of the blog post. I think acting in concert with the community for the most part, actually fosters innovations and an innovative journeys like the one on which you're currently embarked because you don't have to worry about CLI tools and you don't have to worry about this. You can focus on the problem of like how does an Ember application work with a global atom as its state.

TORAN: That is the idea. I mean the route is interesting. I have a little helper to your point, Charles if you've seen some of the docs or any of the examples. There is a little helper for routes and all it really does is provide dispatch as an argument. For instance, a lot of times I just want a model to be a regular function and dispatch to be an argument so I can return a Promise or do some Generator stuff as a side effect. In that way, I sort of create a shorthand which is just really simple. It allows me to say [inaudible] model and then have dispatch as an argument and run my code then just providing that to this special little helper. It’s a functional type helper called route and what it does behind the scenes is it injects the Redux service for me, which is again something you can do by hand. If you really just don't like that or you want to be more in the herd, you can just have a regular route, inject the service and then get dispatched from that service and use it.

ROBERT: It looks like you just dropped the version 2.0, like three hours ago. I would like to ask, we heard about your journey like you were feeling like you weren't hungry for learning. I want to know more about where you actually sat down and wanted to write this add-on on and why you chose to clone the React-Redux API and what took you on that path?

TORAN: Yeah, that's a good question. Back to benefits or the reasons I got excited about, of course I mentioned during the talk that Dan Abramov did. There was some interesting dev tools. First of which was this thing Time Travel Debugging which it allows you to sort of move backwards in time and pretend as if actions and mutations or what looked like mutations that never occurred. That was very interesting. I wasn't really sure of the value, especially at the time. I told you guys around 2015, I was consulting which lucky me, I was doing Greenfield. Thankfully, I was working with a really great team and some great people, built an amazing product.

I don't really understand the pain of this. For the most part Ember-set was doing its job and I didn't really have a lot of interest in learning this. But as I got more into it, also started a full time job last year, I pretty much just fix bugs for a year. Anyone who's been on one side of the fence or the other knows that the bug fixing side will sort of expose, maybe the weaknesses of the application or patterns or choices made. For me, that was really mutation or shared mutable stake aka the root of all evil.

If you've ever looked at your Elm ClojureScript, Elm next is the same vein where immutability is very much there. Charles, of course gave his talk on immutability and trying to get people interested in that or more interested in the Ember community. That was really all I wanted to do to your point, Rob was provide really an outlet for people to use this and I wanted to keep the messaging away from the things I didn't like, which I think was actually something I screwed up to be fair early on.

I think I was very vocal in the microcosm that I would talk to people about like, "These are the things I don't like about Ember," or I would use the word 'Ember the good parts' plus 'Ember the bad parts' and I was told not to say that anymore on the Slack channel. Once I started getting too much needed feedback -- I don't want to be negative about it -- I changed my messaging and as part of that, you mentioned Rob I basically cargo-culted or copied this API from React-Redux called connect and excluding the brief route helper that I mentioned, Charles a minute ago, the real idea here is you just call disconnect function with two other functions: mapping state and closure actions.

Everything else becomes then vanilla JavaScript in this reducer function we talked about briefly where I have state coming in and I need to transform it into a new state. One interesting benefit of that -- I wasn't overly critical about until I really saw the difference is that -- I'm no longer using the Ember object. I'm not doing Ember.get and set, which immediately start to open the door some time last year for TypeScripts interest.

I'm actually not a super type friendly person. I sort of left Objective C and C# and Java in my background and have like this Vietnam experience when people ask me about types. But I do understand one very critical fact that I can't dispute about types is that there are more information for the next programmer than you have without them. Again, my experience this last 12 months has been, as a maintenance programmer, I need more information.

Tests are great when they're there but they also don't provide the interface or all the information about those and certainly the compiler may help as well. I don't know yet. I'm not doing any TypeScript. What I started notice is also more functional programming and maybe just not in our core yet but also things I wanted to steal from other ecosystems because I also found is very interesting. I started to study functional programming. I know like nothing about it, of course. I don't think anyone does because I can't describe a monad without getting in trouble or being wrong.

For me, the real value is the separation of the data structure and the function. I'm preaching to the choir here but that was so much like an interesting idea to me and actually spurred on some of the further patterns or adoption of those in my work in Ember-Redux because this presentation and container component idea was really that I was separating the data structure from the function of the view. I think you mentioned this in your talk at EmberConf where the actual HTMLbars template is really just a function that has data in, HTML out. I started to internalize that and think about that and what were the properties I got from that, as well as I enjoyed functional programming.

Some other great benefits that we've already touched on briefly are just how much more of this I felt explicit, not that Ember-set is inherently implicit but when you do a Ember-set for mutation to chase down every single place in a complex system to determine why they something render this way? It does feel a little more implicit than something like React-Redux with this connect function where I was like, "Wow," when I was doing React. Especially, I was like, "I bet I could just put a breakpoint at every connection so when that callback happens, I can know exactly what action spurred on this new callback to rerender," and that was something that was very new and interesting.

Then of course, falling out of all this was another hyped tooling thing that I thought was really cool, not explicit to Redux, again but it got me interested because that's hot reloading. All hot reloading of CSS and Ember CLI, which I've never done design work which I'm not good at. But I do write some CSS or hack-on it when friends show me what to write. Then writing HTML was a separate experience. Once you wrote the CSS, you would hot reload in that course, what do you do every time you change CSS, you also change HTML, which would incur a full-page reload with a live reload tool, if you're familiar with that in Ember CLI.

This tooling allowed the Redux store itself because it's stored the state, allow me to really throw the component away in the page without refreshing it and then providing a new one and just go rerender because the state was instantly mapped in and then rerendered. I actually did a demo sometime last year and like, "I'm going to build a star rating component and here it is with live reload. Here it is with hot reload. I'm not going to make a decision about which one is better. You decide," and overwhelmingly people were like, "This is a much nicer feedback loop to make HTML and CSS changes in real time."

ROBERT: Agreed. Let's pedal back the hot module reloading because that is pure awesomeness. But that has a little bit of setup they have to do and changing your application. I remember we were talking about this. When you did that demo, I remember this. But there's a little bit they have to do to make your components stateless. They have to come down from the Redux store.

TORAN: Correct and this actually still applies if you are, I think using Ember data as well, as you just can't pull the state to reload it anything local, which may go against what you're trying to do with your component.

ROBERT: Right. That's cool but I do want to highlight a little bit something that was cool about the Redux dev tools as with all the state that you have since it's in a centrally managed place, you can take your state and then play it back over the top of something like if it did live reload and it'll just pop you right back down to where you were when you were debugging.

When that page refresh happens, if you're not doing hot module reloading, you still won't lose all your state which is really cool. You just play it right back down on top and you're exactly where you were before. It's almost like you would throw a specific test that puts you into that state that you're trying to debug.

TORAN: Yes, it's like git rebase. It lets me pull off my state, replay the new component function and then drop my changes on top of it and see it all viewed together.

ROBERT: Yeah, I think that's massively powerful.

CHARLES: Yeah, it is fantastic and that's where you get into that power. I can get on my immutability soapbox. But it turns out that as programmers, we deal in information and not throwing information away, not just flushing it down the toilet is hugely powerful. I think the thing that's so fantastic is that Redux takes this concept and then all of the tools to leverage it are there for you.

I think that it is something that is missing from the Ember development story and people don't realize that it's missing, that we have all these wonderful tools, we have this conventional way of building our applications, of deploying our applications, of rendering our applications, of marshalling the data in our applications in the form of routes. But what we're lacking is this unified atomically based state management solution. I think that, Toran it's been fantastic that you have pioneered this and trying to bring what I see as a glaring gap in the developer experience to the community.

I'm curious then to ask you what do you see as the future. You know, 2.0 just dropped and there's this need. I feel very strongly that Ember 3.0, 4.0 or Ember 'dot future' at some point should have a unified state management solution. How do you see the road that you're on intersecting with that future if it does in fact exist?

ROBERT: Also how can I help or how can we help?

TORAN: Just real brief before I dive into some of those questions. I just want to mention that 2.0, as awesome as that sounds, of course I dropped that this morning just so we could say that on podcast, really. We’ve had a beta in the works for Ember. The only change really, if you're like, "I just got into an Ember-Redux last week. Is it all garbage?"

No, this isn't Ryan Florence 2.0 -- it was a joke for any [inaudible] router folks in here. Actually, just us removing Browserify because if you are familiar with Browserify in the Ember ecosystem, talk to Robert Jackson or Stef Penner, folks familiar with that in Broccoli, they'll tell you that one of the harder things to optimize and although, it created a great entry point to how do I use Redux? Boom! Ember Browserify, install Redux, I'm done.

If you've ever seen an [inaudible] in Ember that has 'npm:', you're using Ember Browserify to pull in, either a common JS module or some kind of node module and use that in the Ember ecosystem without an additional shim. Now, what we found or learned was that bigger teams that are using this, paid a little bit of a cost and not just cold rebuilds. I'm talking hot rebuilds because Browserify just isn't friendly to get those to be optimized, I guess is the word, so we removed it completely or just use some smaller simpler shims. You actually get the performance improvements hopefully --

ROBERT: That is awesome.

TORAN: -- Which is big win. Back to your question, Charles. The audience that's intended, of course is a little different than most people like me to talk about. In fact, the API itself, I think was a bit rejected. You’re sort of asking like, "What does this mean in the future?" I don't really feel that the traditional Ember audience has picked up around with it because of something that's missing. You said the 'C word' earlier so convention is certainly still missing from this and even in the React ecosystem, they're just barely thinking about, "Look at all this great stuff we can do with one-way data flow and immutability and functional programming," but guess what we're giving up.

No one's really come around with this perfect pattern and conventionalized it as Ember did in its early days so there's a lot of churn, I wouldn't say overly so much that you're not going to getting work done but more than the average Ember developer is aware of. My audience is actually not the average Ember developer, which may be bad for what you're asking about, Charles.

Instead, it's actually the person who maybe has done React and maybe Redux or Backbone in the last two years. They love some of those patterns. They're not in love with the Ember-object because of getting set. Maybe they love TypeScript and they say, "I want to use this in Ember." They joined a new company that's a little larger than the startup they'd been on the last two years and they are using Ember. They love a lot of Ember but they would also like to use some of the predictable state patterns that you get with Redux. As well as maybe the dev tooling, things like that so they have adopted this. I feel like that really is the new audience that I aim to please or I'm falling in line with, which is a little bit outside.

I feel like there's room for some fragmentation and a good beat up on me for that because when the realities of this herd conversation that we're kind of talking around a little bit is that the herd is great until something innovative needs to happen. Innovation, obviously takes some risk and I feel like that's sort of what I did last year and said, "Here's some interesting ideas. I have not shipped Facebook with it yet so let's just check this out." Of course, Ember add-ons are a great way to enable someone to try a new idea. But I think most people got into it, saw this funky connect thing and they're like, "What the heck is this?" It's a function and returns a component. All right, that's not doing that so most people bailed out.

But I do hope people still and I know great folks at LinkedIn, Chris [inaudible], of course. We chat occasionally. Mostly he just tells me what I'm doing wrong. Shout out for Chris. But he knows a lot more about some of the stuff than I do and I think he is fully aware of the values that are in Redux that are great and then working hard, of course during his full time gig to apply these to Ember data and hopefully these do make their way in naturally. I just wanted to be a bit more radical. I don't want to wait around and I wasn't really involved in the Ember data project. My own fault there but I think if nothing else, the ideas will come out of it because the developers want this. Whether you're the audience I'm talking about, which is a React developer from two years ago, you're in Ember, you're eventually going to really understand and want this and then those 'data down, action up' ideas that were pretty unclear to me in 2015, will be very clear.

In fact, if anyone seen or heard of this Project MobX, which is like an alternative in a way, popularity-wise to React ecosystem. It kind of looks like Ember in a way where you get sort of some more magic and what I found quickly in playing around MobX is that you can very much fall into the shared mutable state problems. The interesting part about MobX is you can opt into a strict 'data down, actions up' approach. But if you don't have the Ember battle scars like we do, you're just going to come in and say, "What's less work?" Just like in Ember when I can do a set in the [inaudible] node, why would I do 'data down, actions up' and that's the transition I want to see folks make. Hopefully they learn something from that.

CHARLES: Right, I agree with you. Although, I think the time has definitely come, I think the term 'herd-mentality' is an unfortunate one. I prefer to think of it as like a pack. If you travel as a pack, you can bring down moose that are bigger than you are individually. But every once in a while, like a gigantic moose with laser horns shows up and then what are you going to do? If you're hunting as a pack, you have to introduce new things because I like that analogy a little bit better than a herd because the job of the herd is just to not get eaten, where is the pack has this idea of these entities that have to stick together. They’re hunting and they're tackling different problems as they come but sharing in the benefits.

But I think that there has to be room for innovation inside that herd/pack-mentality, whatever you choose. I do think this idea needs to be introduced so what I would say is that if you're listening to this podcast, you should actually go and you should try and use Toran's add-on and you should try and build something with it so that if you have opinions about how it should fit into Ember, then we can hear them.

It sounds like you're taking a minimalist approach, you're emulating patterns that are proven to work in the React community so kind of enabling that seed cross-pollination right there. I would say go build something with it, experience what it's like to have your state as a single atom, experience what it's like to have incredible development tools that come along with that.

I think that if you're in the Ember community today, you need to go build something with React, you need to go build something with Redux and you actually have made it one step easier to do. You don't even have to leave Ember to do that. You can build something of node with production quality code using Redux and you can experience what it's like. That’s my challenge, I think to the Ember community. Go try it, go experience it because you'll come back, I think like I did. You'll come back with superpowers just from having tried that.

ROBERT: Managing state becomes so easy.

TORAN: Yes. I want to jump in briefly and just cover one point that we haven't talked about that's very controversial so why not drop it at the end here. I think, Rob you might have asked about it earlier and I just didn't feel brave enough to talk about it at that time. But you guys keep going back to this idea and I have to talk about a little bit too.

One of the motivations is I live in Iowa. I work in Texas. Thankfully, this great company, Q2 employs me and I don't know why I'm being paid. I'm lucky to be writing JavaScript for money, probably we all are. But in the Ember local community that I'm in, a very little folks writing Ember and that was even years ago. I was like the only voice in the middle of the Midwest screaming and then folks in Minnesota would tell me that wasn't true so I went up there and did a conference as well.

But for the most part, I looked around the job market too and thought, "It be really great if I understand some of the more JavaScript-centric parts of building web apps today," and when I looked at Redux functional programming, the way the reducer worked and structured, the way to React-Redux project was structured and thought, "I bet I could emulate that an Ember," such that I could actually and I believe this is to be true, that if you were in a React-Redux project or even an Angular like ‘ngRedux’, which is a very similar connect binding, you could copy a whole directory of your reducer code, which is all vanilla JavaScript. If you're doing generators, which we didn't talk about but if you're doing you know any additional side effects, you copy all that vanilla JavaScript, drop it into your Ember app and it all works because it doesn't matter if it's in React or Ember or even Angular, even View if View has some connect API like this. We all share this common API that is just give me the functions that enumerate over the data and return new states of the data and call back to rerender.

There’s something really powerful about that but the tradeoff being there are not a lot of strong conventions, Charles that I have adopted. That's kind of what I'm cautioning here a little bit is that I'm still also just watching the other communities to see what eventually turns out not. This is going to be am Ember add-on and I don't care what everyone else is doing. This is my vision because really my vision was to make a drop in for anyone already doing Redux on any platform.

CHARLES: You know, to the point, there's a pack that extends beyond the Ember community and it sounds like you're also leveraging and being a part of that.

TORAN: There's an interesting idea about the hunger thing, which just tied us in and there's where the fourth thing that a doctor will tell you to get your hunger back is go experience eating with other people. There’s actually a statistic that when you sit down to eat with someone else or many people, you're likely going to eat 44% more food than you did on your own. That’s just, I guess a statistic that's true. I just made it up for this podcast. No, I think it's true.

If that is the case, then I think that very much translates to programming as well where when I'm developing code with other folks and I'm on like the React channel and we're just talking about vanilla JavaScript, it doesn't have to be me being an Ember developer anymore, which has been a large part of what's blocked me from being, I think an asset in my local community in the broader JavaScript community.

At large is every time I get a conversation it's like, "I have to do it the Ember way," and that's changing actually. The Ember has credit a lot of deprecation if you guys have seen or follow the RCs and other just Ember upgrade deprecation. We’re kind of getting away from being Ember and writing just more JavaScript and even maybe sometime this year beginning ES6 classes, instead of Ember object extend. I think Ember is heading in that direction. I just went there, rather rapidly because I also was again experiencing vanilla JavaScript with other communities, View and React.

ROBERT: I think we're walking on this very similar path. I'm following your footsteps right now, it sounds like.

TORAN: My last point which was that third bullet about building component trees, it didn't sound like either of you guys really contest that and I'm friends with, obviously Chris Freeman, formerly The Frontside and Chris tells me, "You're trying to build full component trees once you're injected at the route level and you're not doing like a ton of HTML in your controller HPS files." Is that true?

CHARLES: We treat our controller basically as a component. Sometimes, we'll be like, "This is the controller and if we ever use it in more than one place, we'll take out its component." We're not super dogmatic but we definitely see the clear separation of the route is for maintaining the data and everything else is just one tree of components just below that.

ROBERT: The more I think about it though, I'm so conflicted because I really like routes in Ember and they do a lot for you. I like having the data be maintained in one spot but I don't know a single store with Redux maintaining that and using like Redux-thunk or Redux-saga. I got some exploring to do.

CHARLES: I don't think those are mutually exclusive propositions. That's what you were saying at the beginning, right Toran? You still do all of your data munching in the route. There's two kind of subjects that I wanted to broach briefly, although I don't think brief is possible with them is actions, like how we talked about data down, we talked about where you draw the seams in your application, where you're loading your data, where you're mapping it to your components and having that separation into your presentation components.

We didn't get to talk about reducers so much and how you map. You touched on it like the mechanics but suppose I have a to-do list and I want to delete an item and I've got some button to delete an item, that's down my component tree. How do I map that action back up to the store? I don't know if we actually have time to cover that because it is meaty-meaty subject.

ROBERT: Redux part two?

TORAN: Yeah, we have to follow up because really that is a little bit more of an advanced segment not that folks shouldn't hear about it. But one thing that's a radical shift, Charles that we would have to go into and talk about, which is controversial as well as most folks want to operate in one structure, one dictionary not in the array. Then immediately, everything flips to being a Lodash operation. I didn't really use Lodash at all until I got into this. You guys probably actually are smart folks to do.

But for me, this store is not in array now. When I'm doing array operations like remove or filter, I'm actually operating with Lodash on an object to produce those new states and most of it is just learning the Lodash operators because I didn't actually know them so the Yelp Clone that I have out there is a very simplistic look at using Lodash with Ember. But it accomplishes some of that.

Then also, the secondary piece that would also consume a ton of time that we should go into but maybe not today is switching from Thunk to Generators with Saga and then maybe even observables with RxJS, which seems like possibly the future. Those all sounds cool but I think they're going to blow the heck out of scope on this thing.

CHARLES: All right. Well, thank you so much for coming by Toran. As always, our conversations are too big to fit into a single podcast. I really want to have you on again. There are so many things that we haven't even touched on. We haven't touched on the subtleties of how action dispatching works. We haven't touched on using Ember-data -- I'm just [inaudible] out there and say it.

With Redux, we haven't open that can of worms and who doesn't want to just sift through a can of worms on a podcast? We are going to have you on again. I am positive of that.

ROBERT: We're going to paint that bike shed.

CHARLES: Yeah, we're going to paint that bike shed. It’s a bike shed that needs to be painted. It’s something that the community, I think needs to face head on. Thank you so much for coming by and talking with us about Ember-Redux. Everybody, go and check it out. Toran, you've got some talks coming up, if you want to mention those real quick.

TORAN: Yeah, I just wanted to plug. There's possibly going to be a talk, we're still lining up the official date with the Washington DC Ember Meetup sometime in April. I planning out to fly out there actually and give this talk on Ember-Redux. I want to thank just publicly the RSA team for kind of helping sponsor me to fly out and check it out. As well as give a more in-depth talk on Ember-Redux in the Meetup setting.

CHARLES: Fantastic. If you're in the area, be sure to go check that out. If not, watch it on video and then unrelated Ember-Redux, if you haven't watched Toran's EmberConf talk on Outside-In development.

TORAN: That's out actually global Ember Meetup, I think.

CHARLES: Okay, that one. Actually, just go watch all Toran's talks. The thing that I didn't mention at the beginning of the podcast is that you do a lot of live coding, which is just makes my bowels freeze when I think about doing it. You just pull it off so effortlessly so it's definitely, definitely worth a watch.

With that we, will take it out. We'll see you guys later. That's it from The Frontside. Remember to get in touch with us at Frontside.io. If you're interested in UI, that's engineered to make UX dreams come true.

Katie Gengler

Show Notes:

Resources:

Transcript:

CHARLES: Hello everybody and welcome to The Frontside Podcast Episode 54. I am your host, Charles Lowell, with me is Alex Ford. Today, we're going to be interviewing Katie Gengler. I remember very distinctly the first time that I met Katie, it was actually at the same dinner, I think that I met Godfrey at EmberConf in 2014. That was just a fantastic conversation that was had around the table and I did not realize how important the people that I was meeting were going to be in my life over the next couple of years.

But Katie has gone on to do things like identify a hole in Ember add-on ecosystem so she created Ember Observer. There's a huge piece missing from being able to test this framework that spans multiple years and multiple versions and being able to make sure that your tests, especially for add-on authors, run against multiple versions so she created and maintains Ember-try.

She's a part of the EmberCLI core team. She's a principal at Code All Day, which is a software consultancy and just an all-around fantastic woman. Thank you, Katie for coming on to the show and talking with us.

KATIE: Thanks for having me.

CHARLES: One of the things I wanted to start out the conversation with is something that's always struck me about you is there's a lot of people when it comes to testing, they talk the talk but you have always struck me as someone who walks the walk. Not just in terms of you make sure that your apps have tests in them, where your add-ons have tests in them but talking to people about testing patterns, making sure that when there are huge pieces of the ecosystem missing like Ember-try. I remember this as something that I struggled with.

I was running up against this problem and all of the sudden, here comes Ember-try and you've been such a huge part of that. I want to know more about kind of your walk with testing and how that permeates so much of what you do because I think it's very important for people to hear that.

KATIE: I got really lucky right out of college. My first job was at a place that where people think of mythical themes, XP-focused developers so the first thing I was told is everything is test first, everything is test-driven. I was primarily doing Ruby in Rails at the time but also JavaScript. At the beginning, we didn't have a way to test JavaScripts and there was a lot of missteps in the way of testing JavaScript until we came right around to QUnit. I was QUnit long before Ember even came along. It's kind of bit ingrained in my whole career.

Michelle as well. Michelle is my partner in Code All Day. We’re both very test focused. I think that's what drew us to start a company together and working together. Every project we're on, we try to write encompassing tests: test drive everything, if we're on it, projects upgrade or any project to fix. We try to write tests as a framework for everything that we're doing so we know whether we're doing something right or not.

When it comes to Ember-try, that wasn't entirely my own idea. That was something that Robert Jackson and Edward Faulkner were looking for something right. I remembered that appraisals gem from Ruby. I really enjoyed being [inaudible] gems that I had written Rails so I wanted it to exists for Ember so I just kind of took a promise of to do it. It was extracted from Liquid Fire. I had some scripts that would sort of test multiple versions but it was rough. It wasn't as easy as it is today.

CHARLES: Yeah, it does speak to a certain philosophy because if you're coming to a problem and it's difficult to test, you often come to a crossroads where you say, "You know what? I have a choice to make here. I can either give up and not write a test or trying and test some subset of it," Or, "I can write the thing that will let me write the test."

It seems like you fall more into that second category. What would you say to people who are either, new to this idea or new in their careers and they butt up against this problem of not knowing when to give up and when to write the thing to write the test.

KATIE: I almost never don't write the test so if you're suspicions are true, I will write something to be able to write the test. But there are times that I'm [inaudible] and sometimes I'm just like, "This is not going to be tested. This is not going to happen." Finding that line is pretty hard but it should be extremely rare. It's not when people come to me, I work with a client and they're telling me, "No, it's too hard to write the tests."

A lot of times, it's not only how you write the test, spreading the test and learning how to write a test. It's the code you're trying to test that could be a problem. If you have a very complicated code, very side-effect driven code, it's very hard to write the easier sell, which might Ember acceptance tests. What you're really kind of on a level of integration because you do have a little bit of knowledge of what's going on and you have to be within the framework of what Ember tests wanted you to do, which is async is all completed by the time you want to have this assertions and test.

That means to look different tools like going back to something like Capybara or Selenium and have some sort of test around on what you're doing in order to replace the code that makes it hard to test it at a lower level to begin with. I think a lot of people are just missing the framework for knowing what to do when their code is intractable or not, necessarily that the testing and the guides that have you tested. I think most people could go through tutorial and do tests for a little to do MVC app perfectly fine. But that's easy when you [inaudible] size of the equation so if you're already struggling with code and you're not quite sure, either in Ember, it can seem very, very hard to write tests for that.

I think that's true with Rails as well. I think people that begin in Rails don't understand what they're going to testing, especially if they have an existing app that trying to add test to but unfortunately, Rails not a long ago, kind of got into everybody's heads that your tests go with what you're doing. It's just ingrained part of the Rails community. Hopefully, that will become how it is with Ember. But a lot of people are kind of slowly bring their apps Ember so they really have a lot of JavaScript and they don't necessarily know what to do or they're write in JavaScript have always are written with jQuery and a little bit [inaudible]. They don't understand how to test that.

ALEX: How does Ember-try help with that? Actually I want to roll back and talk about what is Ember-try and how does it fit into testing? You mentioned the appraisal gem which I'm not familiar with. I haven't done much Rails in my life or Ruby. But can we talk about what Ember-try is?

KATIE: Sure. Ember-try, at the basis, let's you run different scenarios with your test. At some point, I would've said, let's run different scenarios of dependencies for your tests so primarily changing your Ember version and that's pretty much what add-ons do but a lot of people are using it for scenarios that are completely outside of dependencies so different environment variables, different browsers.

They're just having one place to have all these scenarios, where if you just put it in travis.yml like your CI configuration, you want it as easily be able to run that locally. But with Ember-try, you can do that locally. I found that it's kind of beyond my intentions, expanded beyond dependencies.

Primarily, it lets you run your test in your application with different configurations. I could see running it with different feature flags, it would be what something to be interesting to do, if that's something you use. Primarily, it just lets you try the conversions and appraisal gems let you run test with different gem sets so you have a different gem file for each scenario you possibly had. That was definitely dependency-focus.

CHARLES: That sounds really cool. It's almost sounds like you could even get into some sort of generative testing, where you're kind of not specifying the scenarios upfront but having some sort of mechanism to generate those scenarios so you can try and surface bugs that would only occur outside of what you're explicitly testing for, which is kind of randomly choosing different versions of environment, variables, feature flags, dependencies and stuff like that. They didn't thought of that?

KATIE: Randomization [inaudible] but Ember-try really does have a kind of general route way of working on and that's we're leading to that. If you wanted to, especially for add-ons, you can specify this version compatibility keyword and your packet at JSON and give Ember and give an Ember string a version and it will generate the scenarios for you and test all those versions.

These Ember strings are pretty powerful so you can say specifically versions you want. You can do a range of versions and it will take the latest patch release and a reminder, at least you don't want to be too crazy and test each of those for that add-on. But I can definitely see something random, they're really cool. Some testing thing that's like just tries to do random input into all of your inputs on a page. I've really been meaning to try that out. Sounds like [inaudible].

CHARLES: Yeah, just like to try and break it. I remember a world before Ember-try and I can't speak highly enough about it and the fact that how many bugs it has caught in the add-ons that we maintain because you're always working on the latest, hottest, greatest version of Ember and you're not thinking what about two-point releases back.

They’re might be not a deal breaker but some subtle bug that surfaces and break your tests and the coverage has just gotten so much better. In fact, I think that they're as brilliant as it is bundled with EmberCLI when you are building an add-on. It's like you now you get it for free. It's one of those things where it's hard to imagine what it was like, even though we lived it.

KATIE: And it was less than a year ago.

[Laughter]

KATIE: Ember-try existed for more than 15 bundle with EmberCLI so since last EmberConf or so.

CHARLES: Yeah, but it's absolutely a critical piece of the infrastructure now.

KATIE: I'm glad it caught bugs for you. I don't think I've actually caught a bug with it.

CHARLES: Really?

KATIE: Yeah, but I don't do a lot of Ember re-add-ons. I do a lot of EmberCLI-ish add-ons. It can't change versions of EmberCLI. Not yet, we're working on that. I get some weird npm errors when I tried it but I haven't dug into it much yet.

CHARLES: I don't want to dig too much into the mechanics but even when I first heard about it, I was like, "How does that even work?" Just replacing all the dependencies and having a separate node modules directory and bower and I'm like, "Man, there's so many moving parts."

It was one of those things where we're so ambitious. I didn't even think it was possible. Or I didn't even think about writing it myself or whatever. It’s one of those like, "Wow, okay. It can be done."

ALEX: This exists now.

CHARLES: Yeah.

ALEX: Add-on authors are accountable now for making their add-ons work with revisions or versions a few points back like you said but it makes it so easy. The accountability is hardly accountability, turning Ember-try. It's really amazing.

KATIE: What I'm laughing about is that what it actually does is not very sophisticated or crazy at all. For instance, for bower, it moves your existing bower components structure. It’s a placeholder. It changes the bower.json run install. Then after the scenario, it put's everything back.

CHARLES: But I don't know, it sounds so hard. It’s intimidating. You got all this state and you got to make sure you put it all back. What do you do with if something hit you and abort midway. I'm sure you had to think about and deal with all that stuff at some point.

ALEX: I kill my tests all the time in Ember-try and I was like, "Oops." I forgot I shouldn't do that just like for this.

KATIE: Yeah, it doesn't recover so well. It’s pretty hard to do things on process exit in node correctly, at least and I don't think I gotten it quite right. But there is a clean up command. Unfortunately, with the way it interacts with EmberCLIs dependency tracker so when you run an Ember command, Ember checks them to make sure all your dependencies are installed. If you still have the different bower.json and install haven't run, you have to run install before you can run the cleanup command which is kind of a drag.

CHARLES: I have one final question about Ember-try. Have you given any thought to how this might be extracted and more generally applicable to the greater JavaScript ecosystem because I see this is something that Ember certainly was a trailblazer in this area. Some of these ideas came from Rails and other places. This is going to be more generally applicable and had you given thought to extracting that?

KATIE: Yeah, some of [inaudible] since we first did it because we realized very early on that it doesn't depend on EmberCLI. I didn't even using it as a command line arguments parser which doesn't seem too important. But there are some assumptions we get to make. For it being an Ember app, we know how EmberCLI was structured. Some of those assumptions, I wouldn't really know with the greater node community and I gotten those assumption might not be possible at all because they don't have the standards we have on EmberCLI. It generated EmberCLI. There’s generally certain things that are in place in Ember [inaudible] works for [inaudible] so there's no part of it that could be extracted.

But I worry about some assumptions about no modules always being in the directory that they are in because then can be link the node modules above it. In EmberCLI, it usually doesn't support that. But other places, obviously have to. I realized that it could definitely happen but I'm not so sure that I'd want to personally support that because it's a little bit time commitment.

CHARLES: Right. Maybe if someone from the outside want to step in involuntarily, you might work with it but not to personally champion that cause.

KATIE: Definitely. I think it would be really cool and I do think it will end up having its own [inaudible] parser eventually, just to be able to do things like different EmberCLI versions. As long as it's not part of EmberCLI, I think that would be less confusing, though. In theory, that can be done with an EmberCLI still but I'm not clear on that. I've had people talk to me about that and I haven't fully process it yet.

CHARLES: Right. Alex you mentioned something earlier I had not thought about but that was the technologies like Ember-try keep the add-on community accountable and keep them healthy by making sure that add-ons are working across a multiplicity of Ember versions and working in conjunction with other add-ons that might have version ranges.

Katie, you've been a critical part of that effort. But there's also something else that you've been critical part of that you built from the ground up and that is Ember Observer. That is a different way of keeping add-ons accountable. But I think perhaps, even in a more valuable way, more of a social engineering way and that's through the creation of Ember Observer. Maybe we can talk about Ember Observer a little bit. What it is and what gave you the insight that this is something that needs to be built so I'm going to step forward and I'm going to build it?

KATIE: I'm definitely going to refer again back to the Rails community. I'm a big fan of Ruby Toolbox. Whenever I needed to jam, I would go there and try to see what was available in that category kind of way. There's variables that have on there. It will have something like the popularity in the number of GitHub stars and the last time it was updated.

You can see a lot of inspiration for Ember Observer in there so maybe I should step back and explain the Ember Observer. Ember Observer is a listing of all of the add-ons for the Ember community. Anything that has the Ember add-on keyword will show up there. We pull it off from npm and it all show you all that kind of information: the last updated, the number of GitHub commits, the number of stars, the number of contributors and we put all of that information and a manual view together to put a score on each add-on. You can look at it and we categorized them as well.

If you look at a category, say, you're looking at a category for doing models. You would see all of a different model add-ons and be able to look between them and compare them, decide which ones to use. Or if you're thinking of building something, you can go in there and be like, "This already exists. Maybe I should just contribute to an existing thing."

What gave me the idea for is I was looking at Ember add-ons, which just shows you the most recently published add-ons for that Ember add-on keyword everyday and every time I was clicking on these add-ons I go, "They did the same thing," and it just seemed like such a waste in [inaudible]. People were creating the same things and then they started clicking into and I was like, "Why they bother clicking into this. It doesn't have anything. It’s just an empty add-on." We're pushing add-ons just to try that out so I thought I'd be nice if something filtered that out and I happened to have some time so I got started and dragged my husband, Phil into it.

He's also an Ember and Rails developers so that's pretty convenient and my friend, Lew. Now, Michelle works on it a little bit as well. That’s what drove us to build it and it's been pretty cool. I like looking all the add-ons when they come up anyway. I feel like it's not any actual work for me. It’s quicker than my email each day to look at the new add-ons.

ALEX: How many new add-ons are published every day on average?

KATIE: On average, it's probably four to six maybe but it varies widely. If you get a holiday, you'll get like 20 add-ons because people have time off. You know, if somebody just feeling the grind at two and you'll notice that the add-on struck commeasurably too. It would be else that come on the same kind of week.

ALEX: You mentioned that an add-on gets a score. Can you explain that score and how you rate at add-ons?

KATIE: Sure. The score is most driven by details about the add-ons. There's Ember factors that go into it and it's out of 10 points. Five of them are from purely mechanical things, whether or not there's been more than two Git commits in the last three months, whether or not there's been a release in the last three months, whether or not they're in the top 10% of add-ons, top 10% of npm downloads for add-ons, whether they're in the top 10% of GitHub stars for add-ons.

ALEX: I know that I'm a very competitive person but it also applies to software. Not just on sports or other types of competition. But I remember a moment and I'm an add-on author and my add-on had a 9 out of 10. I was just about to push some code and just about to get a release. Even before that happened, it went to a ten.

The amount of satisfaction I got is kind of ridiculous. But I like it. I like the scoring system, not just for myself but also for helping me discover add-ons and picking the ones that might be right for me. I'll check out any add-on basically that might fit the description. As long as there's a readme, I'll go check it out. But it still helps along with the categorization.

CHARLES: Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you can achieve an 8 out of 10 without it being a popularity contest. By saying there's a certain concrete steps that you can take to make sure that you have test and you have a readme, that's a thing of substance. I don't remember what all the criteria are but you can get a high score without getting into the how many stars or if you're in the top 10%. I think that's awesome.

But it does mean that if I see an add-on with a five or something like that, it means that they're not taking my concrete steps or it might not be as well-maintained. You know, that's definitely something to take into account. I'm curious if there are any different parameters you've thought, tweaks you thought of making to the system. Because this gets to second part of that, what things had you considered just throughout out of hand, as maybe not good ways to rate add-ons.

KATIE: We haven't thought about everything. I don't particularly like the popularity aspect of it. It did feel necessary to include it in some way. The stars and theory are representative of interest, not as much as popularity but it probably gets into popularity as well then downloads are inferior for popularity.

But the problem downloads and I found this happening more and more frequently is that if large companies start publishing their own add-ons, then they have a lot of developers, they are going through the roof on those downloads so they're getting that to a point that just from their own developers and I have no way of knowing if anybody else is using this.

CHARLES: Probably their continuous integration with containers, right? Like if it's running on Travis or Circle, it's just sitting there spinning like pumping the download numbers.

KATIE: Yeah and that frustrates me quite a bit. But I haven't found another thing that really representative popularity. Unfortunately, with npm you can get the download counts but you can't tell where they came from. There’s no way to do that.

I simply would like to see the things that are popular, they rate higher than the they currently do, like you said either, it's 10 points go without the popularity coming to affect it. But you do need a collaboration with at least one of the person to get eight points. If you give seven by yourself, you need to have another contributor. If you only have one contributor, you don't get that point because that's trying to be representative of sort of a bust factor but it's not truly there. You can just have one commit from somebody else to get that.

CHARLES: Of all the pieces, I think that's totally fair.

KATIE: Yeah, there's definitely a few other things I have in mind to bring in to the metrics but we're not quite there yet. I need to entirely refactor how the score is given so it's not exactly out of 10. The idea is to have some questions and some points that are relevant only to certain categories about us. Whether or not in add-ons testing its different versions of Ember, it might have matters for add-on but it's only adding 10 for CLI or whether or not they have a recent release. Might not matter if it's kind of a one-off with the sass plugin or something more of the build tool that doesn't change for everyone.

CHARLES: Yeah, I've noticed we have that happened a couple times where we've got a component that just wraps a type of input. Until the HTML is back changes or a major API changes happens in Ember, there’s no need to change it. I can definitely see that. How do you market it is like something that changes infrequently. Is it just that add-on author says it's done? You give them a bigger window or something like that?

KATIE: There are probably some sort of categories that fall under that. For the input, I think if it's doing something that Ember producing components, it probably want to be upgrading every CLI, at least every three months. I think in that case, it's probably fair to require an update within that period of time. But some of the things that are more close to Broccoli like as they are in Ember add-ons, that make sense to not have that requirement. Maybe not that's the [inaudible] exact example of the kind of questions that [inaudible].

ALEX: In Ember add-on was the first time that I gave back to the open source community. It was my first open source project and Ember Observer really helped me along the way to say what is an open source best practice and I thought that was really cool. Now, it sounds like with some of the point totals, you're leaning towards Ember best practices to help Ember add-on authors along that way. I think that's really awesome and very, very useful. I would not like to see what the Ember add-on ecosystem would look like without Katie. It would be a very different place.

KATIE: Thanks. I'm glad it had some help on that and I'm affecting add-on authors. I actually didn't originally think about it when I was first building it and I was really hoping to help consuming of add-ons but it really has kind of driven out people finding add-ons to not build because they contribute to existing ones. Also, driving them for the score because as you said, people get very competitive. I really didn't realize what kind of drive the score to be because to me I'm like, "Somebody else's score me. How dare you?"

KATIE: I have had people say that to me, "How dare you score me? How dare you score my add-ons?" Well, it's mostly computerized. Even the review was manual but only thing about it has any sort of leeway is are there meaningful tests. That's really the only thing when I go through an add-on is whether or not that has any sort of leeway for the judgment of the person that's doing the reading. If there's a readme and we're kind of a rubric so that goes if you have anything in there that's other than the default Ember [inaudible] readme. Whether or not there's a build that is based entirely whether or not there's a CI tag in readme, these are for the owner to go look for them [inaudible]. We hope to automate that so I don't have to keep looking for those. A lot of add-ons turned out have to have builds when they didn't have any meaningful tests. They just had tests so that's kind of confusing.

CHARLES: What do you do in that situation? You actually manually review it so that add-on would not get the point for tests.

KATIE: No, they don't get the point for test and if they don't get the point for test, I put 'N/A' for whether or not, they have built so it doesn't apply. It doesn't mean anything to me if they haven't build their own test.

CHARLES: Right, that makes sense. A lot of it is automated but it still sounds like consume some of your time, some of Phil's time, some of Michelle's time. I guess, my question is do you accept donations or a way that people can contribute because I see this as kind of part of the critical infrastructure of the community at this point. There might be some people out there who think, "Maybe, I could help in some way." Is there a way that people can help? If so, I'd love to hear about it.

KATIE: We don't have any sort of donation or anything like that. I mean, we should. We consider it primarily just part of our open source works, part of our contributions to the community because we also make a great deal of use out of the community. Fortunately, it's not very expensive to run. It’s only $20 a month VPS. Other than time, it's not really consuming very many resources. That may change over time. The number of hits is increasing and we're doing some more resource-intensive things like Code Search and we're running Ember-try scenarios from the top 100 add-ons to generate compatibility tables. It hasn't been the most reliable.

Think about if you're trying to do nvm-installed times 100 add-ons, times every day, times the different Ember dependency settings so it's been very much like a game of whack-a-mole but for now, it's not bad. But we probably should think about some sort of donation by then. Maybe something that writes out the exact numerical cost of something like Ember Observer.

The API is getting about 130,000 hits a month but that's the API so that's some number of quests per person. [inaudible] tells me something about 12,000 visitors each month.

CHARLES: Does Ember Observer has an API? Are there any the third-party apps that you know about, that people built on top of the Ember Observer?

KATIE: None that have been kind of public. I know a couple of private companies seem to be hitting the API but it's not a public API. It's really not public yet. I'm literally process of switching over to JSON API and at some point, I'll make some portion of that -- a public API -- but it's pretty hard to support that at the same time. It change Ember server pretty frequently and do any kind of migrations we need to do. Ember add-ons does all the scores from us from API end point.

CHARLES: I actually wasn't aware. I remember the announcement of Code Search but how do you kind of see the usage of that? What’s the primary use case when you would use Code Search on Ember add-on or Ember Observers?

KATIE: I think the primary use case is if you're looking for how to use a feature. If you're creating an add-on and you want to know how to use certain hooks like [inaudible] or something like that. You can do the Code Search for that and see what other add-ons are doing. It’s only searching Ember add-ons that have the repository are all set so you'll only find Ember results. That will be nicer compared to searching GitHub.

Then I find another use case is more by the core team to see who is using what APIs and whether or not they can deprecate something or change something or something has become widely used since we're pretty excited about that possibility, we've never ever been searching.

ALEX: That is brilliant.

CHARLES: Yeah, that's fantastic. The other question that I had was this running Ember-try scenarios on the top 100 add-ons and that's something that you're doing now. Are you actually reflecting that in the Ember Observer interface? Is that an information or is that an experimental feature? Or is that reflected all the way through so if I go to Ember Observer today, I'll see that information based on those computations?

KATIE: I start playing in the Ember Observer interface. It’s only for the top 100 add-ons currently but hopefully expanding that to all add-ons. Especially, for few months but maybe it's not easy to notice. The only on top 100 add-ons would be on the right side bar and there will be a list of the scenarios we ran it with and whether or not it pass or not. There's add-on information there. The top 100, I’ll link to right on the main page of Ember Observer so you can see in the front.

CHARLES: How do you get that information back to the author of that top add-on?

KATIE: We haven't actually done that. It's just on Ember Observer. It’s more meant for consumers to be able to see that this add-on is compatible with all these version. We’re not using their scenarios. We’re using our own scenarios saying Ember from this version to this version, unless they have specified that version compatibility thing and then we'll use those auto-generated scenarios.

This might get harder for add-ons that have complex scenarios so it need something else to vary along with the versions like Ember Data or maybe they're using Liquid Fire and Liquid Fire have these three different version and for each versions, it's being used. For those, we’ll just have things which are unable to test this. But hopefully, this is still providing some useful information for some add-ons.

A lot of add-ons, their build won't run unless they commit. In this case, this is running every night so new Ember versions released will see if that fails. On other side of it, we have a dashboard where we can see which add-ons failed and maybe see if a new commit to something broke a bunch of add-ons. It commits to something like Ember and for CLI Ember-Gate, one of the main things.

CHARLES: I know that certainly that right after we get over this podcast, I'm going and running or checking up all add-ons that we maintain and making sure everything is copacetic. If you guys see me take off my headphones and dash out the door, you know where I'm going.

KATIE: Got you.

ALEX: I just have a further comment that I'm excited for the public API of Ember Observer just because I've been thinking a lot about data visualization lately. I think it would be really cool tool to do a deprecated API, like one of those bubble charts where like the area that's covered by this deprecated API -- I'm doing a bad job of explaining this -- just like the most use deprecated API methods and visualizing that, I think they'll be really interesting to see it.

CHARLES: Right, seeing how they spread across the add-on.

ALEX: Yeah, or just all add-ons in general.

KATIE: I am most nervous about a public API for Code Search, though because it's a little bit resource-intensive so just freaking out a little bit about the potential of a public API for it. But an Ember Observer client is open source. If you want to add anything to the app, that I consider as public think it is.

Adding to that, I really do want to figure out some way to have like a performance budget for when people add to the client because sometimes I'll get people who want to add features and I'm like, "That's just going to screw all of it. It's going to be a problem for all Ember Observer and it's going to make everything slower and it's really little slow. But JSON API fortunately, I have kind of a beta version that running and it's going to be much faster, thank God. I probably shouldn't said that either.

CHARLES: Definitely we want to get that donation bin set up before the API goes public. Okay, let's turn to the internet now and we'll answer some of the questions that got twitted in. we've got a question from Jonathan Jackson and he wanted to ask you, "Where have you seen the most change in the Ember ecosystem since last EmberConf?" which was March of 2016.

KATIE: There was definitely fewer add-ons being published but the add-ons that are being published are kind of, say more grown up things. We’ve got... I don't know if engines was before or after March. I have no idea. Time has one of those things that engines and then people doing things related to Fastfood so things are coming from more collaborative efforts, I think.

This is just my gut-feeling. I have no data on this. Isn’t a gut-feeling from looking at add-ons and then there's a lot of add-ons that are coming out that are specific to a particular company. I think that maybe, I hope representative of more companies getting it to Ember but hopefully, they'll make things more generic and share them back.

The other problem with the popularity is like about before, where big company is getting itself into the top 100 list, probably with just its own employees only appear over the summer. I tried a few different ways to mutate the algorithm to try to get them out of there but there was no solution there. It's much fewer, novel things. Very rarely do I look at Ember add-ons and I'd be like, "Oh, that's great," but when I do, it's something very exciting.

CHARLES: Right so there's a level of maturity that we're starting to see. Then I actually think that there is something in the story too, of there are now larger companies with big, big code bases that have lots of fan out on their dependency tree that just weren't there before.

KATIE: Definitely. I don't think some of the large companies were there before but I think some of the largest companies are probably keeping most of their add-ons private so there's kind of mid-range of company that's big enough to donate things or willing to put things open source. A few of these companies that can have a lot of add-ons now and a lot of them are very similar to things that have already existed so you're going to be like, "I don't know why I use this," but they obviously make changes for some reason.

CHARLES: The other thing that I want to talk to you about, before we wrap up, is you actually are in partnership in Code All Day. What kind of business is that? What is it you guys do? What's it like running your company, while on the same time, you're kind of managing these large pieces of the Ember ecosystem?

KATIE: Code All Day is very small. It's just me and Michelle. It's a consulting company, we kind of partnered together after we left to startup and decided to do consulting together. We primarily do Ember projects, also some Rails and we try to work together and we love test-driven things.

It’s pretty kind of loose end. We ended up running it since it's just a partnership. We don't have any employees. But Ember Observer will take up a lot of our time and we really had an idea that it might help us get clients that way so I suppose it kind of helps our credibility but it hasn't really been great for leads so much. But fortunately, there hasn't been a big problem for us. We really enjoys spending our time. We enjoy the flexibility that consulting gives us and while that flexibility is what's going to making these things keep running.

CHARLES: All right-y. Well, are there any kind of skunkworks, stealth, secret things you've got brewing in the lab, crazy ideas that you might be ready to give us a sneak preview about for inquiring minds that may want to know?

KATIE: Some of them are really [inaudible] which is redoing Ember Observer with JSON API instead of currently, it's using ActiveModel serializers, which is a kind of custom API to Rails and [inaudible] fortunately, it's an API now. They're removing something called JSON API Resources so that will get the performance of Ember Observer much better and that's pretty much my primary focus at the moment.

I don't really have any big skunkworks, exciting projects. I have far off ideas that hopefully will materialize into some sort of skunkworks projects.

CHARLES: All right. Well, fantastic. I want to say thank you, Katie for coming on the show. I know that you are kind of a hero of mine. I think a lot of people come to our community and they see like, "Where's the value in being a member of this community, in terms of the things that I can take out of it? What does it provide for me?" And you demonstrate on a day-to-day basis, asking what you can do for your community, rather than what your community can do for you, to paraphrase JFK.

I think you live that every day so I look up to you very much in that. Thank you for being such a [inaudible] of the community which I'm a part of and thank you for coming on the show.

KATIE: I'm very happy that I've been here and thank you. I use a lot of your guys add-ons and it's really the community has given so much to me, which is why I ever want to participate in it. It’s really great group of people.

CHARLES: Yep, all right-y. Well, bye everybody.

ALEX: Bye.

Godfrey Chan

Show Notes:

Resources:

Transcript:

CHARLES: Hello, everybody and welcome to The Frontside Podcast Episode 53, brought to you by The Frontside where we engineer user experience that is just so. If that's something that you're interested in, please feel free to reach out to us on either Twitter or at contact at the Frontside.io.

GODFREY: Yeah, that is correct, Vancouver, BC.

CHARLES: Yeah, Vancouver, BC. You know, I was struck at the time and I was like, "Wow, this guy is really smart and insightful and actually making me laugh a lot."

GODFREY: You're very kind.

CHARLES: I don't know if you remember that but that was borne out at the next EmberConf in 2015 where he gave this fantastic talk on the power of Ember Data's adapter and serializer layer, where he repeated the same trick except at scale in front of the audience. I think we were all rolling in our chairs with laughter but also learning a lot about this really, really powerful pattern and you had written serializer and adapter layer to basically build without a back end at all, a completely new UI for Hacker News. It was really a fantastic talk.

Since then, you've just been going on to do a bunch of other great things: you joined the Rails core team, the Ember core team, and most recently, it sounds like the major thrust of what the last year or so has been giving birth to Glimmer 2, which is the next generation of the rendering engine in the Ember.js framework. It’s a really fascinating topic. Thanks, Godfrey for coming on and talking with us about this.

GODFREY: Thank you for having me.

CHARLES: Yeah, it's a huge deep topic so we're just going to scratch the surface. Obviously, can't cover a year of life in just under an hour but we're going to do our best. Why don't we talk just a little bit about what Glimmer 2 is? For our audience members who are deeply involved with Ember community, it probably is not going to come as a surprise but we actually do have other listeners. What is it and why is it important?

GODFREY: Like all good software, Glimmer 2 was basically born out of an accident. Glimmer 2 on a very high level is the new rendering engine for Ember. That's pretty vague but I guess, we'll go back a little bit in terms of the timeline and maybe that would become more clear. The time frame was pretty much when I first joined Tilde, we shipped 1.14 for a while and we just about to ship 2.0. That’s when the original Glimmer planned it.

That year at EmberConf, I believe it summer of 2015, like Tom and Yehuda talk about this new Glimmer thing on stage that has promised to basically renew the Ember programming model to better match the data down, actions up paradigm as opposed to very reliant on to a bindings and stuff like that.

On one hand, it gives you better programming model and on the other hand it's promised to be much faster at rerendering. It’s more or less inspired by React so you can just treat your component as if it's refreshing a page on a server-rendered HTML or something like that. You can just update your data and then rerender a component and that's going to be efficient enough that you can just basically rely on that as the main fully-rendered model.

That ship in 1.14, for most part it was great so we were planning to start working on the next thing and at that time, the plan was to work on rehydration. If you're not very familiar with it, it's basically the next iteration of FastBoot where today when you have a FastBoot render page, when it goes [inaudible] has to then download JavaScript the data and rerender the page basically for the DOM then re-insert the newly rendered content into the page.

There are several problems with that. First of all, it's a lot of wasted work because you already rendered all the HTML on the server side and now you're re-doing the work and you’re framing them away. Also your users will probably see a brief flash because you're deleting the old DOM and you're replacing with a new DOM. You probably lose important things like [inaudible] position and probably not the most performant way to do that also. That’s what we're going to work on next. Basically, allow the rendering engine to instead of rendering a new DOM, just rehydrate the existing markup that was sent by the server and just wire up the thing so it can be updated further on the client side.

CHARLES: What I'm hearing is that the original Glimmer that was introduced in 2015, it had to always assume starting from a zero state. It couldn't take an existing DOM and kind of converge.

GODFREY: Right. That's still true today. I wouldn't say that the rendering engine is not capable. It’s just that the feature was not written yet, at the time we were about to start writing that feature. It took us maybe a week or two spiking on it. We got something working like as we go for that exercise, I was basically new to the code base at the time so Yehuda was explaining a lot of things to me. We were pairing basically full time at that time.

If you know Yehuda, he also travels a lot. He has a lot of other responsibility like [inaudible]. We basically paired for a few days and then he might go on a short trip or I might go on a short trip for a conference or whatever. Then we'll come back and then it was like, "Wait a minute." I basically forgotten most of the things so we have to go through the concepts again. That was a little bit painful.

On the other hand, the code was not really that well-rationalized or well-structured. It's a relatively old code base or at least in terms of JavaScript age, the original Glimmer 1 was basically bolted on top of what we were using at the time, which is HTMLbars engine where we can perhaps go into a little bit more details on that later. But basically, the engine was not really designed for a lot of those so it was getting a little bit difficult.

Separately on another fret, a lot of things is going on at the same time, we’re getting more reports on performance regression on Glimmer 1, which is probably a little bit surprising because the whole point of Glimmer 1 was introduce a new algorithm to make things faster. That’s the big promise of the original Glimmer but it turns out that, indeed we rerender performance a lot faster. However, because it was so slow before, basically a no one used that feature ever so the existing apps are not getting any of the benefits because you would have to do a lot of refactor to take advantage of new programming model.

However, you have existing code that you're using in production. Those code did not used new programming model, did not get any of the benefit. On top of that, it turns out that even though we have this superior algorithm in Glimmer 1, we inadvertently regressed it the initial render performance for components. That’s not a tradeoff that we explicitly made. It's just that we wrote a lot of new code and we were mostly focusing on making the rerender pass as fast as possible.

By the time were done, everything seems fine, we shipped but in the wild, people reported, "It turns out the thing I care about just got slower," and because it's not like a design decision that trade off that would made, we don't actually know what's going on like we have a lot of new codes somehow, that made thing slower when you do investigate.

Basically, at that time, we had to polish our work on rehydration and focus more on performance. As we dug deeper into this rabbit hole, it turns out one of the main thing that happened was how we handle blocks. In the handlebars template, you have a pound or a hash, like let's say, '#if' and then if something and there's a block in there then you do slash if, that's blocked in handlebars.

It turns out we made some significant changes in how that works and blocks got significantly slower for some reason and you can see that by comparing the performance between the block form of the if-helper, like #if, blah-blah-blah, versus the equivalent of the inline form just the curly-curly, if something then show render a string, otherwise render some under string so if you compared to those two versions, they really should be the same thing. They are not functionally any different but if you compare the render and performance between the two versions, it turns out the block version is like in order of magnitude slower, for some reason.

That’s bad because it turns out we also made some changes to how components work and each component has at least two hidden blocks that you can't see. It were like basically, how the tech name and stuff were rendered so these components, some blocks and blocks got a lot slower so the end result is component initial rendering got slower. That’s unfortunate because that's probably one of the most useful feature of Ember or any view [inaudible]. Like on a client side, the way I like to think about it is like if you're writing code and if you've a really long function you probably want to break it down to smaller function for your own sanity.

I think components serve a similar role in your templates, like when your template are really big, you probably want to split them into some more modular or hopefully reusable components. If nothing else, just break it down to smaller chunks so you can reason about it.

Components are really important and the community is really starting to pick up the idea of components around that time. Unfortunately, we made a change that made components slower so we have to do something about it. That’s more or less why Glimmer 2 happened like you're starting out as an investigation into why components got slower, what can we do to make it faster and deeper? We take down on that rabbit hole.

We found more things about the HTMLbars engine that is not very aligned with the way we want things to work, which makes it more inefficient than we will like. Basically, it turns out as an effort to realign how the engine actually works with who we actually do with the engine. It start up very incremental and at some point, several things happen that basically cost it to become a complete rewrite. That’s basically the backstory of Glimmer 2.

CHARLES: Now, here we are, there are these fundamental problems with Glimmer 1 that you can't get to where it is that you want to go, which sounds like these set of optimizations so a rewrite is underway. What were the key things that needed to change in order to make this happen?

GODFREY: The overarching theme is basically the original rendering engine. There’s not much of a rendering engine to speak off. I think at the time, we don't really fully understand what our requirements are. We don't really know what our needs are so we built something very, very flexible. That’s basically HTMLbars and it's kind of self-evident at this because we could take HTMLbars and retrofit the Glimmer 1 [inaudible] from on top.

HTMLbars is literally just handlebars plus HTML. It's capable of rendering static HTML and every time it sees a double curly or a mustache, as we would call in handlebars, like every time you see open double curly braces, it provides a set of hooks for you to hook into that process. Every time you see curly-curly, what happens? It says, "This is a block or this is an inline helper," and it just delegate to Ember to, "Please tell me what to do next." That's basically handlebars.

CHARLES: If I can kind of interject a question because I think this is kind of a source of confusion, certainly for me. What is exactly the relationship between handlebars.js, like if you go to handlebars.js, the GitHub organization, it is a separate code base, is that just a parser and a syntax? What exactly do the individual libraries contribute? Because we have handlebars.js, HTMLbars, Glimmer 1, Glimmer 2. I think it's a source of confusion that's how are these composed to work in tandem or in tridem when I actually use Ember. Because I know there's people who use handlebars.js that have nothing to do with the Ember community so what's the relationship there?

GODFREY: Right. There's handlebars, the language, so to speak and there's handlebars.js, the library. Handlebars is basically just a string templating language. The word 'templating' is probably more confusing than it helps in this context but it's a fancy string interpolation. In JavaScript now, I guess in ES6 you can do it or in Ruby, you have special notations and string to interpolate things. Handlebars is a platform independent language for writing interpolated strings. It has some fancy features like helpers and stuff. But at the very core, it's a way to write really long interpolated strings.

Handlebars.js is the JavaScript bindings for that language. As I said, handlebars itself is platform independent but if you have a helper and handlebars like you need to be able to write code for that helper somehow and handlebars.js is the binding that let you write those helper functions in JavaScript.

Handlebars.js indeed has a parser in there so you can give it a handlebars template and it would parse into NAST for you. It also has a small runtime library that allow you to register helpers and stuff like that. That’s handlebars.js.

CHARLES: And HTMLbars is using handlebars.js?

GODFREY: In some sense, yes. The original Ember up to 1.10 or something like that, actually uses handlebars.js. It used to be that. We actually do everything as string templates. We just interpolate the string and more or less, just set 'element.' in HTML equals '.string' and that's how Ember used to render things on a screen.

Now, HTMLbars does use a part of that pipeline, specifically uses the handlebars parser. How it actually works is there are two possible orders and maybe in the middle of this, I realized I was wrong and it's actually the other order. But I believe how it works, let's say you have an a HTMLbars template or just .hps file in your Ember app, you basically run that through the handlebars parser so you get this some string and then there's some curly mustache here and maybe this is a helper, this is a block, this is whatever.

Then I believe we then take all the text notes in the handlebars-jst and then we parse that as HTML tokens. Basically, if you have user.firstname, let's say, and close curly-curly, closed diff, that will basically end up being parsed into a combine jst of this open element of diff and then there's a mustache of user.firstname and then there is a close element of diff. That's the extent that HTMLbars uses handlebars so basically, it uses the handlebars parser to help with some of the work.

Now, the part I said I always get wrong is either, you parse it through your handlebars first and then you parse the HTML inside the handlebar-jst or you parse the HTML first and then you use handlebars to parse the curlies inside the HTML-jst. I'm pretty sure we do the handlebars thing first but I'm still not 100% sure. One way or the other, if it turns let's say it parses handlebars first, if it turns out that I'm wrong, I'll probably sent a tweet or something after the show. Does that answer your question? Does that make it more clear?

CHARLES: It does because I was always kind of wondering, does Glimmer and Glimmer 2 include its own completely separate implementation of handlebars or not and I think it answer the question of where that boundary lies.

GODFREY: Right. Actually, there's a minor detail. I think we're actually on the older version of handlebars. I think there are some new handlebars feature that we need to reconcile. But for the most part, yes, we use the handlebars parser and that's basically the part of the handlebars.js we actually use.

JEFFREY: That leads to talking about we used the handlebars parser at the bottom layer. How do you maintain that compatibility? Do you want to have a really great upgrade path from using HTMLbars as the renderer to using Glimmer 1 or 2 as the renderer? Would you talk a little bit about how you maintain that [inaudible] and compatibility?

GODFREY: Actually, the handlebars parser part is probably the least interesting part in terms of compatibility. When we did Glimmer 1, I'm kind of speaking as outsider person here because I was not super involved at that time. But from what I hear, after EmberConf 2015, there was a website called IsEmberFastYet.com. It basically count down the number of failing test.

Glimmer 1 was kind of a similar situation in that. It was still using the same HTMLbars library and it was part of 1.14 so it still maintained support for a lot of the legacy features like Ember.View and things like that. It's 'easy' in a sense that most of the test are still applicable so more or less, you just rewrite the code and you keep running to test and see what passes or what fails. Then when everything is green, you ship. That’s the Glimmer 1 story.

However, the devil is in the details. The tricky thing is at the time the test coverage is not very good. As it turns out passing on to test isn't really mean a whole lot so the difficulty in Glimmer 1 is you don't even know who your enemy is really. Not a lot of ways to find out if it actually did the job or not, other than actually just shipping it. As you ship, people start to report a lot of bugs and we're like, "Oh, crap. Actually, this is not tested at all so now we need to fix it." That went on for a long time really.

If you actually look at the release history of 1.14, probably have the most number of point releases and that's probably the biggest divergence we ever had from the six weeks release cycle.

Unfortunately, what the software is supposed to do is it's unspecified at the time, at least in terms of actual tests so it was a long process and somewhat painful process for the community to figure out what we actually need to support. That was the 1.14 transition. Unfortunately, some apps are still stuck on 1.14 today because of that, because some add-ons or some part of the code bases using some of the features that were previously undocumented or unspecified and it doesn't work on Glimmer 1 anymore. That’s Glimmer 1.

After that transition, we have a much better test coverage story to work with when we did Glimmer 2. However on the other hand, we actually rewrote the entire engine and also in leading up to that, we actually drop a lot of the legacy Ember features. The test coverage we previously have is useful to have but they're also pretty outdated. Concrete example of that is most of the tests previously written was written in terms of [inaudible] that's no longer a thing in [inaudible] Ember but all of the tests use views internally to test things.

The first thing we actually need to do when we try to integrate Glimmer 2 is to port all of those tests,

But as we start doing that, we realized this is a lot of test to port. Fortunately, it's very paralyzable so what I did was I spent some time writing this really long issue and now are known as The Quest Issue for Glimmer 2, which outline, I for one, this is what we are trying to accomplish. This is going to be a lot of work but fortunately, the work is pretty mechanical or at least the transformation is pretty easy to describe in words. I did that. I described the work that needs to be done and we invited the community to help along.

Let's see, that Issue# 13127 on the Ember report. That’s known as The Quest Issue and basically, it have a checklist of all the test that still needs to be ported. Surprisingly, a lot of people were really into that, like a lot of people turns out were interested in contributing to Ember but didn't know where to start. This Quest Issue end up being a very good place for someone new to Ember to start contributing.

We got a lot of response from that and within a relatively short amount of time, certainly much less than what we would have spent time doing it ourselves. In the relatively short amount of time, all tests were ported. I think that was one of the most successful call-for-help in the history of Ember or even in the history of open source software that I am personally involved with.

As part of that too, by doing the harness, we actually introduced much more rigorous approach to testing things. In that process, the test coverage is probably increased several faults as well. With that, we were able to have a relatively high confidence that once all the tests are passing, that we are certainly in a very, very good shape. There might still be some unspecified behavior like there will always be some of them. But I think given the Glimmer 1 transition and also given the new style of testing, that is a lot more rigorous than before, we certainly did that much, much better compared to a Glimmer 1.

After doing the original Glimmer 1 and even further back, we start with handlebars and then we wrote HTMLbars, then we wrote Glimmer 1, by now we're actually have a pretty good picture of what we actually trying to accomplish here. The requirements is becoming more clear and at the same time, we have a much better or much clearer model to work with on the Ember side because we got rid of a lot of the legacy features in the transition into Ember 2.0.

HTMLbars started off as a very generic library that allow you to add behavior on top of HTML and handlebars. Glimmer 1 was basically loaded on thing using those very generic infrastructure to implement the algorithm we actually want. It turns out that we actually know what we're doing now. We don't need a super generic infrastructure for this so let's make it more tailor-fit thing for the requirements we actually have.

An example of that is in HTMLbars, there is no concept of components. There's only thing called block helpers or either inline helpers or block helpers and what happens is every time you see curly-curly something and then you call into Ember, "I found a curly-curly, please do whatever you wish with this," and then we checked and, "It turned out this thing has a dash in there so probably a component. Let me try to resolve that. It turns out it actually is a component so now please synthesize some things and callback into HTMLbars library. This is the thing I actually want to render. Please do it."

In Glimmer 2, actually component is pretty fundamental feature so let's build it into the rendering engine. Hopefully that would give you a better idea of what I actually mean by relying the engine with what we actually want. We know we have a pretty good specification of the problem now so we will build the thing that solves that specific problem. When I say, let's build components into Glimmer, it's not even a very concrete thing, like I don't mean the current syntax that happens to be Ember or the hypothetical angle bracket component syntax that's coming to Ember. It is just a very generic concept like there's a thing called component. It’s like function calls but in templates. Let’s make sure we have a good support off that. Basically, the more the engine knows, the better we are able to optimize that.

Previously it's like, it turns out there's a helper-ish thing here so I guess the only thing we need to do is to hand it back into Ember and let it do whatever it wants. Now, the engine actually knows that this is a component so let's try to figure out how we can optimize this component invocation based on what else we know about the arguments and things like that. That’s basically the motivation or the design behind Glimmer 2.

CHARLES: Right. It’s amazing that you find this pattern, kind of cropping up again and again in software where less really is more. The more assumptions that you can make, you can often make the underlying system more powerful. It’s kind of counterintuitive because we want to think we want to make everything super flexible and can handle every single case. But it turns out that if you can eliminate a bunch of cases just out of hand, then you're going to have more power.

One of the things that I'm curious about is it sounds like a lot of the motivation has been around performance, making sure that initial render is performant and not just a rerender. I'm kind of curious, what nonperformance related features is this going to unlock? This has been a while coming, Glimmer 2 land in what? 2.10?

GODFREY: That sounds about right.

CHARLES: Looking forward, what are some of the things that we can expect or what are the kind of cool features that this is going to unlock? What's the potential that we're going to see and realized kind of over the next few years based on this work that's been done?

GODFREY: In a very technical sense, there are not necessarily a lot of features that are absolutely blocked in a very narrow sense of the works. However, as I mentioned before, everyone kind of felt the same way about the previous code base. Basically, the complexity is getting a little bit out of control like it's so super generic that the things are so spread out across different libraries that's really hard to work with. It’s really hard to add new features.

All the rendering related features are kind of put on hold as we work on Glimmer 2 because everyone knew that this better code base that's going to come along pretty soon. If we were to do anything significant, we should probably wait for that to finish. The good news is that has finished now and I think most people would agree that code base is in a much, much better shape now.

In that sense, it unblocks a lot of work, both in terms of this lock that has been released but it's also in the sense that as we design Glimmer 2, we have all those things in the back of mind and we basically make sure the engine has good support for building out those features. Some of the things that are in the pipeline is I guess rehydration. We basically paused like Glimmer 2 spun off that but we never got back to finishing that work. I would say that's coming.

There is angle bracket components. This is actually interesting in that. I think the plan for it to land has changed a little bit. I don't know how much I'm supposed to- Well, there are actually not a lot of secrets but just that someone's in the middle of writing out those RFCs. I don't know if I should [inaudible] shout too much of that. But as I mentioned before, Glimmer 2, the engine has pretty good support for components out of the box, like it's a pretty generic concept of component that's not necessarily tied to a particular syntax and even particular feature set. It's not tied to a particular component API, like this is not forcing you to have a specific base class and stuff.

A lot of the features in Ember, like the mount keyword for engines or outlets in Ember or the render helper in Ember, all of those are actually implemented as 'components' under the hood, inside the engine even though they're pretty different things from the curly bracket component that you're used to in Ember today.

I think there's a rough consensus on this, like I said, the RC is still in progress so a lot of these things can change but I believe the plan is we'll try to stabilize the core component primitive in the Glimmer 2 engine, that basically let you implement your own component API however you want as a very low level feature. If you remember how we implement the engine, it's kind of similar. We stabilized the core primitives for making engines work under an Ember and then we have an official Ember engines add-on that uses those primitive to provide the actual user-facing API when you want to support.

I believe angle bracket component would be similar in that. We would try to stabilize the core primitive of implementing components in the Glimmer engine, then we'll iterate on the new Ember component API, probably as an add-on or something like that. We can get more people to try it and improve the API before actually land that as a core feature in Ember.

CHARLES: What I'm hearing is there's actually the potential here to treat the kind of the core component API as an extension point like if I want to define my own different set of semantics and lifecycle hooks and what have you for my special components within my add-on or my Ember application, I could do that and yet have it exist alongside kind of standard components.

GODFREY: Exactly. It’s a pretty low-level API and I don't think most users would want to go for that. But I think it unlocks a lot of potential for add-on and things like that. Because as I previously mentioned, the [inaudible] in Ember is implemented using that API to render helpers, implement using that API so hopefully you can imagine there are probably something that people really wanted to do and add-on step could be made possible with that low-level API.

It might not even look like a component. It could be things like you do in Liquid Fire. I think, [inaudible] has a suite of add-ons that provide some pretty events rendering features that could fall under that umbrella. Basically, it's just opens up a pretty powerful low-level primitive that add-on authors can use to implement the features they want but at the same time, also allow us to iterate on that.

I don't imagine a future where literally everyone is building their own component API. I think we would still, as a community have basically this system main kind of component you use in Ember but for whatever special case you have, you can drop down to the low-level and do whatever you want.

CHARLES: Right, and at least that area for experimentation and innovation is at least there.

GODFREY: Right.

CHARLES: That actually kind of brings to mind a very specific case that I was thinking about so I kind of throw this at you as a very friendly curveball that like this is something that you could conceive of being possible. I recently was working on an Ember application with my dad and there were some visualizations. Originally, I was doing these visualizations in D3 and it was cumbersome as D3 code can actually get.

The part where you actually compute the D3 scales and the SVG attributes in D3 is very concise but the actual D3 rendering code can be very verbose and can kind of degenerate into this jQuery type like soup. What I did as kind of a first pass is I separated the computations and the slicing and the dicing of the data in D3 and presented those to a simple HTMLbars template as computed properties of a component so I had done all the computation around the visualisation in my Ember component. But then for the template, I used just a simple SVG template and it was beautiful. It was this pretty complex SVG visualization fit into, I want to say, less than 20 lines so you could perceive the entire visualization in one standard editor window, which if you've done a lot of D3 code is actually hard to achieve.

When I saw that and I promise I'm going to make a point here, I was like, "Wow, this is like a powerful concept." I feel like this is the way that we ought to be doing SVG visualizations. But the thing that I lost was the thing that kind of this special sauce of D3, which is I wasn't using D3 to actually do the rendering. I was just doing it for the computation so I didn't get those really sweet transitions.

One of the sweetest concepts the D3 has is this join model where when you make a change and you push a new set of elements onto the visualization, it computes for you the SVG, the actual DOM elements that are leaving, the ones that are entering and the ones that are updating.

I was thinking, "Gosh, it would be really great if there was some way to hook into that inside of Ember," and I'm just kind of curious would such a thing be possible to actually get hooks on the low-level elements? Because essentially, that's what a dom-diff is, which elements are leaving, which ones are coming in, and which ones are changing. Would it be possible to have those hooks with Glimmer 2?

GODFREY: I think it's definitely possible. I don't know how much of that you can actually do right away in the current code base but I think conceptually, that makes a lot of sense and that's definitely something that we should have support for, if we can already do that today. What can be adapt was I haven't spent a lot of time doing animations myself, but I would say that makes a lot of sense. I hope most of that is already achievable today. But if not, we should definitely make it happen.

I think a lot of people didn't realize but we actually spend a significant amount of time on our end, making sure that we have good support for SVG. We do have a spec compliant HTML parser and stuff so it's actually rendering SVG with Glimmer or with Ember, which is actually really nice. We have some of those animations or visualization stuff in Skylight and we actually take a similar approach where we actually have SVG templates and we just use Ember to fill in the dynamic data and we have some, I believe, JavaScript code to do the animation but we should definitely talk more about that topic and making sure it's solid.

CHARLES: You know, I can't reiterate how sweet it feels to do as SVG. Really, when I kind of stumbled upon it, I was like, "Wow, man. Someone needs to do this more."

GODFREY: I believe in the latest iteration of D3, they actually broke up the library into pieces that makes some of those things much more easier. I think that's definitely at direction that everyone wants to have to work.

CHRIS: I know that you talked about that there are people writing RFCs and EmberConf is coming up so I'm assuming that there are possibly some things that are going to be talked about there. But one of the things that has really kind of floated around Glimmer 2 ever since last year's EmberConf is that in terms of the next leap forward for Ember, Glimmer 2 was often pointed to as the blocking thing.

You know, angle bracket components, a lot of other features that people would like to see in Ember, a lot of it seemed to be bound up and Glimmer 2 was going to unlock a lot of these things for us. I'm curious for an end user of Ember, what is Glimmer 2 really mean for them in terms of the next six months to a year? Are there a lot of things that are planning to be unlocked by Glimmer 2? Or is it going to be much more of an incremental progress? Or do we actually know everything that's going to be unlocked at this point?

GODFREY: I think it's a combination of all of those. Like I said earlier, there are probably features that along the lines of the angle bracket component or the low-level component primitives rehydration. There is also this concept of chunk rendering in that, basically, do as much rendering as possible without making a significant pause on the UI [inaudible] and then yields expected browser for user interaction and then go back to rendering more stuff and repeat that until you're done.

The net effect is you basically, don't block scrolling and things like that for a significant amount of time. Even though, your initial render might actually take more than the 60 FPS or whatever time frame you have allocated. Also, performance in general, I think we're very much not done here. We're just getting started. We have a much better engine to work with and there are a lot of further optimizations that we want to do so now, that we've shipped with completed compatibility, we climb in, more or less I think everyone is excited to get back on to those things that they were previously working on.

CHRIS: Another one I have seen kind of reference a couple times, especially by Tom is Glimmer components and Ember CLI as kind of like a lightweight Ember without all of Ember. Even if you poke around the Glimmer repos, a lot of benchmarks that you can see a version of [e] components that don't yet exist, you see TypeScript, you see ES6 extends Glimmer component.

A lot of things that I know people would be absolutely thrilled to see in Ember, a standalone Glimmer like planned to be a thing at all and like [inaudible] syntax, like ES6 class components is that as they make Glimmer 2 unlocks it all or are there other things that are blocking that?

GODFREY: Yes, all of those are definitely in the pipeline. Standalone Glimmer is interesting. As you mentioned, Tom and several other people have started experimenting with that today. I think Tom talked about it in his EmberCamp London keynote this year or last year -- 2016. If you haven't seen that, you can definitely go check that out. It's not something I would recommend doing today in production just because there are a lot of [inaudible] in the code base still so we need to stabilize that. Literally, when I went on vacation for the last three weeks, you could basically rewrote the entire VM. It's some work that we have been talking about for a long time and he basically end up having some free time to check on that. Everyday changed after I came back from vacation so if you do that today, that's probably what you would have to deal with in the foreseeable future in the next few months.

But I think we are definitely working towards making that more stable so we can enable the kind of things that Tom is doing. Part of it is definitely we need to make it easier. Currently, Tom has to do a lot of work to make that happen and Ember CLI has to be a core part of the story and etcetera, etcetera. But I think a lot of people were definitely working towards that goal.

In terms of TypeScript ES6, TypeScript is actually pretty interesting. It's kind of another happy accident that came out of the Glimmer 2 rewrite. As I mentioned at the beginning, when I was new to HTMLbars code base, there are so many concepts and Yehuda and I both travelling a lot at the time so every time we reconvene, it was like, "Wait a minute. I forgot to read things so let's actually take the whiteboard and write down all these things here permanently so I won't forget them."

As we start to do that, it was like, "Actually this is very complicated to write on the whiteboard so let's just write out the types somewhere," not in a very rigid sense but just, "Oh, there's this thing called render node and this is basically the responsibility. These are the methods on that thing and these are the fields on that thing."

As you write that you would probably want to remember, "Oh, this is actually a string or this is an object with these sub-properties," and as we actually tried to do that, it was like, "Wow, we should not actually invent." We either have to invent a notation for that or we could just use a notation that people have made for this purpose already so let's just go to the TypeScript playground and type it out there.

Then that turned out to be great but it's not that amazing to write. Many interfaces in the browser so let's just go back to the editor window and type in there and it turns out TypeScript is written in a way that all [inaudible] JavaScript is fellow TypeScript. Basically, a superset of JavaScript.

Eventually what we ended up doing is we just went through an entire code base and renamed all of the JavaScript file to .ts, then we made a commit of that. Incrementally, we end up switching the entire code base to TypeScript and that's actually how it happened. In terms of using TypeScript and ES6 classes and Ember is probably block by few RFCs. There are probably some design work needed there but I would say that’s happening. I don't know how close it is but just because there are a lot of things in the pipeline right in it. But I think it's a relatively high [inaudible].

CHARLES: Before we wrap up, we had some great listener questions that came in over Twitter. I want to put those to you. The first one comes from Elrich R and the question is, "What are the performance gains on mobile for Glimmer 2? How does this better position Ember for mobile development?

GODFREY: I think the short answer is it's faster. As far as how much faster, unfortunately, a really hard question to answer just because it vary so much from app to app. We have some numbers that we have been looking as we develop it but at the end of the day, each app is very, very different and the kind of things that slows your app down might not be very obvious.

There’s a pretty interesting thing that happened when we were [inaudible] Glimmer 2. One day I was checking the Ember communities Slack and someone reported, "I have this list of 1500 items that I'm rendering. I know that's not ideal but it is what it is for now. But I just tried Glimmer 2 and it's really slow. It's taking three seconds to render that list of 1500 rows. Is there something wrong?"

I was like, "That sucks." We tried to make this thing faster but I agree, three seconds is still really slow. I was like, "Can you share your app? Can you check what is the delta? What was the number pre-Glimmer 2?" He's like, "Let me go and check. Actually, it turns out it was 14 seconds pre-Glimmer 2 and it was now three seconds." I was like, "Yeah, okay. I agree that's not great but with 1500 items and we went from 14 seconds down to three seconds, I think I would take that as a win."

Part of it is difference like that, really is how complicated your page is. Also there are a lot of factors that are actually unrelated to rendering, perhaps surprisingly, all of which we're working on but for example, how many routes do you have in your app, actually for some reason, plays a pretty significant role on the initial render timing and also how big your app is and things like that.

I think across the board, it's pretty much faster. As you can see sometimes, it’s 14 seconds, three seconds for small apps. It might be from 500 milliseconds to 400 milliseconds. In Skylight I think, we're seeing anywhere from 7% to 40% overall and we're talking about micro numbers just like everything from download in JavaScript to everything up until the page is interactive. There’s a lot more than rendering going on there but I don't have a good one-size fits-all number for you here. But I think overall it's faster and we'll make it faster still and we'll continue to make it smaller. Hopefully all of that would be meaningful improvement for mobile or even just performance in general, if that's something you care about in your apps.

CHARLES: Yeah, because I understand that the payload size is a lot smaller and that ought to make a huge difference there. The final question is and this one comes from Lauren T, "What is your favorite flavor of Bubble Tea?"

GODFREY: Interesting. I love Bubble Tea but for whatever reason, I'm just not really into milk teas. I know that's what most people go for when they get Bubble Tea and my personal favorite is probably Honey-Lemon Green Tea. That's probably my go to.

CHARLES: That's delicious. I think, I subsisted wholly on those AriZona Iced Tea in 20-ounce cans from about the age of 17 to 18. There might have been a few months where that represented all of my caloric intake.

GODFREY: I think I once bought a one-gallon pack of those from Wal-Mart and unfortunately, the bottle broke in my trunk on my way home so I basically stopped buying those after that.

CHARLES: You get the nice smell of rancid tea. All right-y. We'll thank you so much for coming by Godfrey.

GODFREY: Thank you again for having me.

CHARLES: Yeah, it had been very enlightening. A deep dive into the what the Glimmer 2 is all about, the challenges that you faced of getting there and where we can expect to go now that it's here.

Oh, let me ask one final question before we send it out. Glimmer 2 has been a long process. There's been a lot of hills to climb and I know a lot of people that I've talked to, as part of the community, one of the biggest questions I have is how can I get involved? How can I help? Where can I throw my weight to see this technology blossom and become really, really useful and widely applicable to everybody inside the Ember community? Just in general, where are more of those quests that you just described? Where can people go to find out more to contribute more?

GODFREY: There are several places. First of all, there is the Ember communities Slack and there's [inaudible] Ember channel and there's also a [inaudible] Glimmer channel. I think we might merge them back into a single channel at some point. But currently, those are where people hang out.

In terms of quest issue, actually really counting to it in terms of the time investment versus the payoff. If there's one thing that I wish I did earlier and wish I did more is probably I would have started these quest issues earlier and do more of them. I guess we have to write more of them. But basically, hang on those channels. A lot of times, people asked questions then we try to help them out. A lot of times those end up turning into opportunities for contributions.

It’s kind of like documentation. I don't actually hate writing documentation but it's not the first thing that comes to mind, in terms prioritization. I think writing Quest Issue is kind of like that one. You actually do it, you realized, "Wow, this is actually really helpful and I should do it more," but it's just so counterintuitive that it's often not the first thing in trying to do when I try to prioritize my day. It’s just something I have to keep reminding myself and I appreciate the reminder here that I need to write more on these issues and get more people, empower more people to be able to help.

CHARLES: Alright-y. Well, you heard it folks. Thank you very much and we will see you all next week.

Lydia Guarino @lydiaguarino | data.world | GitHub

Shannon Byrne @s_byrne | Blog | GitHub | [email protected]

Stephanie Riera @stefriera | The Frontside | GitHub

Show Notes:

Resources:

Transcript:

CHARLES: Hello everybody and welcome to The Frontside Podcast Episode 52. We're coming to you live from Frontside HQ where we can help you zero in on that precise experience that you want for your users. So, if that’s something that you're interested in, go ahead and reach out to us at Frontside.io.

Today, actually we got a pretty large panel today. It's a hardcore Austin posse - Lydia Guarino, Shannon Byrne, and Stephanie Riera. And we're going to be talking about kind of a passion project of theirs called Emberitas. We're going to be digging deep into it.

But before we get into that, I want to introduce everybody. Lydia is a product engineer at Data.World which is a social network for your data. It's actually a really cool startup where you can go and you can upload your data and you can see other public data sets and slice and dice them. It's really cool.

Shannon, who has been a developer since 2013, is kind of in the startup scene and been ubiquitous certainly in the circles that we've run in here in Austin. And so, her latest gig has been as a code school instructor teaching JavaScript and Ruby on the full stack. And of course, you’ve heard Stephanie on the podcast many times. She's a developer here at the Frontside.

Without further ado, let's talk about Emberitas. What exactly is Emberitas and how did it get started?

SHANNON: Emberitas is a 1-day 2-track workshop for teaching Ember to women. Last year, what was it? Like April maybe of last year, or maybe March, we were at an Ember ATX meetup. Brandon and Charles were talking about how to get more diversity into the Ember meetup. And then, of course, Lydia and Stephanie and I, as sort of the token ladies of Ember ATX, kind of huddled in a circle and we talked about how other communities in Austin were doing things. And of course, there's Rails Girls which is a 1-day workshop to teach girls programming through a little bit of Rails. We were like, "Why not do the same thing with Ember?"

And so, after that, we just kind of picked up on everything, split up a lot of the work, decided we were going to do it, and made it happen. And we hosted our own 1-day workshop for teaching women who had no knowledge of coding some of the basics of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript through Ember. And then taught other women in town who maybe were using Angular or had some experience with Rails or whatever, but didn’t know what Ember was, the basics of Ember, so that they could then take that back to their companies and make more Ember jobs for all of us.

CHARLES: For someone who's worked on trainings before and tried to develop them, how challenging was it to develop a curriculum for women -- literally, all spectra of experience with development. It sounds like a difficult task. And I'm curious what considerations did you take in when you were developing this curriculum and what did it encompass?

LYDIA: One of the things that we did to make that a little easier on ourselves is we split the workshop into two tracks. We had a beginner track and then we also had an intermediate track. Shannon ran with the intermediate track and I ran with the beginner track with an understanding that for beginners, there's a lot more discussion about some of the basics of web development in general or how you think of a project and how you start with the basic building blocks of HTML and CSS, and then grow into building an application.

For the beginner course, what I wanted to focus on was taking those basic building blocks and showing how they can be converted into an application. We actually started with making static web pages and then converted those gradually in pieces into an Ember application. Ember actually makes that pretty straightforward to do because there's such strong conventions that there's obvious places to put all of that information. So, we built everything in HTML and CSS, and then we came back and layered on Ember on top of that but the project was the same in both scenarios. And I'll let Shannon talk a little bit about how she approached the more advance course.

SHANNON: For the intermediate course, one of the challenges was that it was very open as to what that would mean. It wasn’t intermediate Ember; it was an introduction to Ember for anyone who considered themselves a developer. So we had some people who came in and they had a little bit of JavaScript experience and then we had some people who were already full stack JavaScript developers and then some people who had experience with like an NPC framework. People were kind of coming from all over the place, was my expectation.

And so, it was kind of difficult to approach that, to be honest. I wasn’t really sure what to do and I had a lot of false starts as, I'm sure, most people do who kind of create tutorials. Now that I'm working on curriculum for a code school, the same thing happens. There's definitely a lot of after the fact, being like 'duh'. Now I know I should have done it this way. But the way that I approached it was really just a result of conversations that Lydia and I had been having for years, which is how there's sort of some unique differences on what we’ve seen for how women kind of communicate and learn a little bit differently especially when they're in our classes and the experiences cater just to them.

So, I just kind of went off of that and said, "Okay, how do I like to learn?" And then kind of applied that to how I developed the curriculum. It was a lot of, "Well, you might think we could do this, but actually that doesn’t work. Let's try this." And so you go through it and it's kind of like a lot of false starts, a lot of learning together, a lot of like having these tiny little frustrations that you normally have when you're coding, and then achieving something together.

And so the ultimate goal of both the beginner curriculum and the intermediate curriculum was not to teach everybody everything about Ember in one day, but to give them the confidence that they could go out and do whatever they wanted with Ember or just explore more about development in general, after that workshop.

CHARLES: That makes me curious, Shannon, if you can unpack that a little bit more. You said that there were challenges and things that you took into account in developing this curriculum that was specifically for an all-woman studentship. Can you elaborate on that? What were some of the concrete things that you made that you custom-tailored?

SHANNON: To be completely honest, there weren’t a whole lot of things that I could really custom-tailor. It was more just thinking about the things that I had witnessed in terms of working with women specifically, and seriously as a result of the conversations that I've had with Lydia, trying to be much more conversational, trying to allow the questions that generally arose sort of drive what we did instead of being very rigid about how we did it, and the approach that I thought was going to work. And generally, just kind of being like quick on my feet and allowing the course to go at the pace that it should go and not trying to force anything, and really mostly trying to read the room and understand that we might not get to everything in one day.

LYDIA: From the very beginning, from the very conception of this idea, we wanted to build something by women for women. And so, it was really important that we chose female instructors which is one of the reasons that Shannon and I volunteered to be the instructors ourselves when maybe we would have wanted to seek someone else to take that piece of it. But this is something that we were personally passionate about and we knew how we learned Ember and how we could translate that into something that would be accessible to the broader community of women in Austin.

So, we did some targeting with specific groups in Austin that were women-driven. So, Women Who Code has a big following in Austin and we reached out to that community and we made sure that all of the sessions were, like Shannon mentioned, collaborative.

For instance, in the beginner course, everyone worked as partners. You weren’t just sitting there by yourself isolated with your own level of knowledge, you have somebody to bounce ideas off of you, you have somebody right next to you to ask your little secretive questions where you're a little embarrassed to raise your hand but you need someone to quick correct you. I also made sure that when I was teaching the course itself, it was less lecture and more tutorial which allowed me to walk around the room and actually speak to each individual pair about where they were in the process. So, instead of losing people throughout the course because they had slipped behind, I knew where everybody was for the entire day.

While that slows down the overall speed for some of the faster people, it meant that we didn’t have anybody take off at lunchtime which is a problem for a lot of workshops as somebody gets so far behind that they just give up. That was something that we wanted to try really hard to avoid with this particular workshop.

SHANNON: Another thing that I want to say, if I can go back and fix my sort of bumbling before about what I specifically did. I thought about something I actually specifically did. In a lot of online tutorials, what I found is that it will tell you to do something but it doesn’t quite tell you why. And answering that 'why' question is something that’s always really important to me when I'm learning something new, so I added a lot of that into the tutorials that we did. Either out loud I would explain it or I would say, "For anyone who's interested, there's a link in the curriculum that will tell you exactly what that is," a much longer explanation of what a computed property is, why that works, and sort of even some of the internals in JavaScript if people were curious in learning that, to answer that why question for attendees.

CHARLES: The 'why' is a question that unfortunately gets such short shrift in almost everything that we do. It's like shocking unless you see the absence of why.

The other thing I wanted to ask too, Lydia, was you talked about making sure that everybody was paired up so that nobody got behind. Were you deliberate in kind of making sure? I know you had something like 40 students in the first one, so it can be difficult to kind of assess the skill level of each one. But were you able to be deliberate in those pairings and to kind of match people with a productive set of skills?

LYDIA: I think that it's actually a little bit dangerous to have people label themselves before they get into a project. So instead of saying 'hey, if you’ve had some experience here, maybe work with somebody that’s never seen this before', I tried to avoid that. So I actually let them choose their partners -- rather I just assigned them based on where they were sitting in the room. And for any kind of gaps we had there, if I had one pair where those people had way less experience than another group, we had an army of volunteers that were available to come and kind of sit down next to one of the pairs and help them work through the pieces. And I think that that’s one of the major things that helped the day running smoothly because instead of having to have me come over and help them over and over again, we had somebody that could kind of more quietly come over and sit down and work through the tougher pieces or if someone got stuck on a bug, help them untangle it.

CHARLES: I think that’s fantastic because having participated in running trainings before, I know that’s one of the biggest challenges of keeping everybody together and moving forward in unison is making sure that everyone can do things like do an npm-install. I had an entire training derailed because one person just could not figure out how do it. It was basically just Brandon and I and it was terrible.

I guess the question is how many volunteers did it take to make that go smoothly? And I guess the follow on question is do you think that’s indicative of kind of the Ember community at large when you guys proposed this event that you were able to really draw on this large pool of ready volunteers to show up?

LYDIA: The volunteers were actually a strategic move that Shannon and I spoke about early on which was that part of what we wanted to do is show how welcoming and how supportive the Ember community in Austin is. And so, most of the volunteers that we had on hand were actually members of Ember ATX that were interested in increasing diversity as well. So these were people that they could meet in events and people that would encourage them to come back to a meetup next month or whatever. And you could see these are like really approachable, fantastic people and they're ready to help and they're excited about having you join our community.

To keep it running smoothly, to answer that question, we were kind of split. Shannon's had a little bit more people in it than mine but I ended up having close to 20 people. So I had 10 pairs. I actually had almost as many volunteers as I had pairs. So we had some drifters floating between the two classes. But at any given time, I had at least five people running around the room in addition to myself. So, that’s a lot of volunteers to coordinate, but we actually had a lot of support from Ember ATX and from people that really wanted to help out.

SHANNON: That’s a huge ask to ask 10/15 people to come out for the whole day on a Saturday. Even for attendees, that’s a lot to ask people to do. And to have so many people from the Ember community in Austin come out and do that, I don’t think -- maybe there was one volunteer, Lydia's husband, who didn’t know any Ember. But everyone else was from the Ember community and either did Ember professionally or as a hobby, so it worked out really well like that.

I was really glad to see that because the whole reason that I do Ember is because of the people that I met at the Ember meetup and I keep going back. And that warmth that I feel about the Ember community is kind of why I feel so great about doing Ember and why I choose to do Ember professionally is because that feeling that I have kind of follows me around while I code in Ember which is kind of silly.

CHARLES: I don’t think it's really silly at all. I think that’s so much of the pervading narrative is that technology is about technology when in fact it's about people in the community. And I think it's great that kind of almost as just by virtue of holding the event and having those volunteers, what you're giving them is not just a set of tools but also you're kind of giving them a small part, that being the benefit of it is giving them this community.

SHANNON: What was really excellent too and I think what made us be able to kind of coordinate with the volunteers really well is that Lydia and I were running the classes but Steph was really in charge of coordinating the day and making sure that things run smoothly and making sure the volunteers knew where they needed to be and where they could be most helpful because our challenge was that we actually were in two different spaces. We were able to get space donated to us by The Iron Yard but the Iron Yard campus in Austin is actually like there's kind of a field between their two locations where the classrooms are and where their main space was.

And so, what kind of happened was that without Steph kind of like wrangling the volunteers into the right place, the volunteers were kind of forgetting that there was this kind of second intermediate location to come to. And so, I'm so thankful that she was able to be there and just be focused on coordinating the day of type stuff to make sure that everything ran smoothly.

STEPHANIE: Thank you, Shannon. That’s so sweet. I did want to make a quick mention about the volunteers. I feel like, especially in our industry, we hear a lot about the "brogrammer" and we give a lot of slack to men, particularly white men in the tech industry.

I think it's very important to highlight most of the volunteers that we had were all men. And it's these men that are spending their Saturday there to coach and teach women. I think it's a very beautiful thing to see because a lot of these women, I think, they are intimated by going to meetups and going to hackathons because they feel like it's not an inclusive environment and they can't ask questions in a room full of guys. I think that’s indicative of 'that’s not always the case'. Yes, there might be a problem in the tech industry but there are also people that care and you can see that through the volunteers.

SHANNON: It's no lie that the three of us were really the only girls at Ember ATX until we put Emberitas on. We didn’t have a large pool of experienced -- not even experienced Ember developers, but even people who had just sat down to try out Ember in Austin who were female to pull from. And so that was always the go-to was to make this so that we could have this be able to diversify Ember ATX in one way by bringing more women in, but also just to make the community stronger overall.

I'll say again the Ember community is far and above the best programming community in Austin and I wanted to make sure that every other girl at least had the opportunity to know why I rave about Ember meetups and the Ember community and everything about Ember. And that doesn’t just go for Austin, obviously.

To shout out as well to Leah, who already does so much with Women Helping Women in Austin, Tilde actually donated a bunch of extra swag to us from the Ember Conf from last year, Ember Conf 2016. So, that saved us a ton of money that we got to use towards other stuff. And then saving money on that, then we got to do a happy hour after that we also invited sponsors and the rest of the community, too.

We had a bunch of Ember community members who weren’t able to spend the day with us volunteering but they still came out and had a couple of free drinks and got to chat with all the attendees as well. So overall, the whole day was really fun and full of Ember community members.

CHARLES: Personally, I'm so sad that I missed it. I was out of the country although it was on my birthday. So, it was like a good birthday present to know that that was like going on in my community back home.

Having not been to so many Ember meetups since, have you all noticed and I guess this is really just kind of a question for the four, have you noticed real traction like an uptick in the number of women in attendance and kind of an increase in that level of interest from women in the community at large?

LYDIA: The meetup right afterwards had a pretty major uptick because a lot of the people that had come in through Women Who Code and are already kind of avid meetup goers took a chance and came to the meetup. And I've seen several of them come to a couple of the other ones throughout the year. There's at least two people that I've seen repeat show up a bunch of times. When you’ve got a meetup of about 40 people and even if you just increase it by two more, that’s like actually moving the needle pretty significantly.

The trick about increasing diversity, that’s a little bit above chicken and the egg problem, is that the best way to get women to attend is to have women attend. And so, you want to have some women in the room when other women come for the first time because then it becomes a welcoming environment and you can start kind of the snowball effect of, "Okay, I'm welcome here. I see that this person is comfortable in this setting. That means that I'm going to have an easy time integrating here as well."

SHANNON: The timing in terms of -- if we were to do this again actually, one thing I'd improve is to make sure that all three of us could be at the upcoming Ember meetup and that we plan to do it the week before the Ember meetup, so that energy is high and all that kind of stuff. But I think there was something that prevented each of the three of us from maybe even being at that next Ember meetup which really was not a good idea. Maybe one of the three of us was there. So, that’s something that I'd like to improve upon is being more strategic about fulfilling on that goal.

And then another thing that I'd like to do as well like we have Women Who Code slack channel here in Austin and we have an Emberitas room now and we do actually chat on there. And I'd like to incorporate that into what we do as well, is having a community for the women who met there to continue speaking online, so that we can develop that community and I can post in there and say, "Ooh, there's an Ember meetup tonight. Let's all go." But I know a lot of them. I think a lot of them went to an event together that I didn’t know about. When Yehuda was in town, I think a handful of people talked about going to that and they met up through the Women Who Code Ember room. So, that’s cool.

CHARLES: That’s fantastic. I actually think this is a good opportunity to plug something that I learned about through [Emily], who is Alex's girlfriend, is the WeSpeakToo which I think is another good way. You talked about that Catch 22, the chicken and the egg of the best way to have women to attend is to have women attend. I also think the best way to have women attend is to have women speak. And to see that in terms of leadership, there's representation there.

And so, there's a tool that I just found out about that I think is really cool that helps kind of solve that Catch 22 or lower the friction if you were a meetup organizer. You can go and you can find there's a list of women in Austin, it's only in DC and Austin, but it's coupled with an analysis of the ratios of female, male, and non-binary speakers in Austin. There's a signup sheet where you can go if you're a woman or you're non-binary and you can sign up and you can enlist your levels of expertise. And if you're a meetup organizer -- you hear a lot of people say, "Where do I find someone who can speak at my meetup?" And so, that tool exists now. Everything's for Austin.

If you go to wespeaktoo.org/austin, there it is. I certainly hope the three of you guys are on that list if you're not already because I've seen each one of you speak and there's a lot to share there with the community. And so, if you're listening too, I think it’s also a good resource if you're in the DC area or in Austin area or if you want to bring it to your own city. Anyway, I just wanted to share that as what I thought is a cool tool.

SHANNON: And to plug another list too. I have to get the URL, I don’t know it off the top of my head. But Leah for Women Helping Women put together a list of female Ember speakers to make that available to all the Ember meetups. But even if you're a non-Ember person, these are a list of really great speakers. Some of them spoke at Ember Conf last year, other people who put in their proposals and then other people who were just like interested in speaking locally. She has that list somewhere and I'll try and find the link to it.

CHARLES: I will definitely look for that. The other thing that I wanted to talk about before we moved on was we've talked about how you paired people up, you talked about kind of a tight-knit community you created and they were going not just Ember meetups kind of user group but also the bonds that were formed were maintained as they went to other meetups. When we were talking about this part of the podcast, you mentioned some of the icebreaking exercises that you did but you didn’t give any specifics. You didn’t give any details. I want to hear about this and I want to hear what the best ones were because I'm so curious. Again, I'll just throw this question up. What was it that you did to kind of break that ice and what were the best results that you saw?

SHANNON: The icebreaker was actually a little bit of a happy accident. We had budgeted time for an icebreaker at the beginning and it was something that kept slipping down the priority list until the morning off. And on the morning off, we had discussed different brainstorming ideas beforehand but we hadn’t settled on anything. And in the morning off, we were like, "You know what we should do is we should have them as a group act out programming terms or programming concepts." As a group, they had to decide on a way to explain some programming concepts like a wow loop or http or something like that. They had to describe that physically.

STEPHANIE: Also, we use HTML too which is a hard one.

CHARLES: Did you just write them on cards and hand them out to people?

LYDIA: Yes. I literally was scribbling a list as people were walking in of terms that we thought would probably possibly work. And then we've split them up into groups and passed them out. I have to say people came up with the most creative things. It went so much better than I would have ever dreamed.

CHARLES: Is any of this on video? What was the best one?

SHANNON: I have the wow loop dance. I think it’s posted on the Emberitas instagram page that you can all go check out. It was so funny. They all went up there and while one of them was clapping, all the rest of them had a dance. And then when she stopped clapping, they'd stopped dancing. And so, it's really straightforward but it was just hilarious and sort of the big personalities of some of the extroverts in the room were given their chance to shine there in the morning and I was laughing so hard. It went a lot better than I think we expected it to since we had done zero preparation.

LYDIA: That said, Shannon put together a fantastic survey at the end so that we can kind of gather feedback on how to make this better in the future. And we had several comments about the icebreakers themselves. And one of the things that we might want to tweak in the future is exactly how we let different people participate in that activity because some people that were a little bit more reserved, a little bit shier like starting out the day with basically public speaking or a performance was a little bit rough.

Now, I'm going to argue that when you push somebody out of the comfort zone as soon as they show up for the day, everything else is going to be great because they’ve already stepped outside of their comfort zone and they’ve already done the thing that’s going to pull them out of their shell and be able to talk to other people in the room.

CHARLES: Right. The point of those things is vulnerability and to make it safe to be vulnerable. And so, someone who is definitely in, someone who walks around into these groups as a shell, I definitely see the value in that.

SHANNON: The other thing too is one of the positive things about an icebreaker like this is you could kind of take a backseat or kind of [inaudible] off to the side, so we didn’t require everyone to say something out loud either. So, there are positives and negatives.

I think that was like an overall learning thing about doing this is for me, I definitely am a perfectionist and I want everything to go perfectly and I want everything to be exactly my way. It was learning that no matter how well something goes, you can't please everyone 100%. And getting the feedback on the surveys and just seeing how, for some people, the icebreaker was their favorite part of the day. For other people, it was their least favorite part. Some people wanted more workshop time, other people wanted way less workshop time and to focus more on community building and this and that. And so, we can't please everyone but we've really pulled off something really cool that I think made a lot of the stakeholders very happy.

CHARLES: Yeah, definitely, which kind of goes right into my next question which I'm going to ask to all of you is what do you feel are kind of like the key things that you learned from this based on the survey, based on your experience, based on conversations with the participants and observations later on? What was it that you feel like was kind of your biggest takeaway? Why don’t we start with you, Lydia?

LYDIA: For me, the biggest takeaway was that it really makes such an enormous impact for women to see other women speaking and women putting these types of workshops and things on for other women. That was the one thing that stood out to me the most in the feedback was that people were just so excited to see someone relatable up in front of them giving these presentations. And that having the opportunity to see a room full of women that were interested in the same things that they were interested in was incredibly inspiring and encouraged them to kind of go out on a limb and try something that they hadn’t tried before and follow up in the future with more meetups and things like that, which was precisely the goal. I feel like our primary goal was to get women to feel like this was an accessible community and I feel like that was where we excelled the most.

CHARLES: How about you, Stephanie?

STEPHANIE: I wanted to piggy back off of what she just talked about because I, myself, we just touched on something earlier and it was about the feeling of being uncomfortable. It's no secret that and I said it there, I hate public speaking. Absolutely hate it, it terrifies me. I hate doing podcasts, I hate doing all kinds of speaking. But I realized how important it is.

And then as Shannon was saying like you can plan and you want to try as hard as you can to make everything go as smoothly and perfect as possible, but sometimes things will happen. And I remember at one point of the day, she came up to me and asked me a favor and was like, "Hey…" She had been emceeing all day and asked, "Do you mind doing the middle part?" And I think it was talking about Ember ATX and why it was important to do this workshop and all of that.

So I was caught completely unprepared and I was very hesitant. But in that moment, I thought to myself, "Well, we are choosing to be leaders in the community. We are choosing to put ourselves out there and do something for the greater good. I'm just going to do it. I'm just going to force myself to do it."

I think it went well. The first bit of it, I was very nervous and I just admitted it to everyone. But someone else came up to me afterwards and told me, "I think it meant a lot to people to see someone just take something on and speak from their heart, and you can see that they're so nervous but they're still doing it."

And so, that’s the point I wanted to make was yes, I'm uncomfortable with it but it’s the only way you can grow as an individual. I also want to send a message through that which is yes, we're all women, we're all bad ass, we all have this purpose that we want to achieve and we're doing it. So, that was my biggest takeaway. So, thank you, Shannon, for that unexpected request.

SHANNON: Yeah. That kind of came as a result of like I was trying to emcee and teach and I went up to Steph and she was like, "I'm nervous!" And I was like, "Look, I need to lay down. I've been talking all day. My brain is mushed." And she did such a great job and I was so happy that you did that.

For me, I would say Lydia definitely covered all of the philanthropic reasons that this is important and why it went so well and everything that was great. For me, I think that I had been going through some stuff. Like sometimes I question - am I really good at what I'm doing? Am I doing the right thing? Can I accomplish this? The sort of questions that everybody has. Taking this on and sort of planning it from start to finish on our own, doing all the marketing, getting all the sponsorships, getting all the attendees, communicating with all the attendees, trying to pretend that we were kind of more official than we were. I was individually texting people to their numbers and it would be like, "Reply with STOP if you no longer want these texts." Just to make it look like we were something official when really like I'm copying and pasting from one person to the next. And we're trying to get literally everything done, just the handful of us that were working on this.

It made me start thinking about what do I really want to do. I had never truly considered teaching other people to code until this. And now, I'm trying that out. Since then, through Emberitas, we've done another lecture series for high schoolers. We did a weekend workshop for high school girls and honestly, it opened up something in me and I was like, "We need to be teaching high school-aged kids to code." I know that’s something that a lot of organizations are trying to do but I now have a very specific idea of how I want to approach that.

It really gave me a lot of confidence that I really needed at the time. I think that I threw myself so hard into doing Emberitas was because I needed something to really be passionate about it at the time. And then it gave back to me everything that we put into it and I was so fortunate for that. Just to watch everyone having such a good time and everyone learning something and just the look on someone's face when they get something and then the look of someone's face when they make something is so cool. And that’s just what I loved about this whole experience.

CHARLES: Yeah. It sounds wonderful. Here we are in 2017, what's next? Are there any further events that we can look forward to? Are there any grand plans? I mean, you kind of alluded to some of that, doing more education for targeting a younger age group? What can we look forward to? Why don’t we start with, Shannon? What can we look forward to in 2017?
SHANNON: What you can look forward to in 2017 is me updating the website a little bit. It's still the typo-ed place it was at the very last day before the workshop. So, I need to update that so that people can get more information and contact us if they're interested because I have had a lot of people reach out to me over Twitter, through our Facebook page, all that kind of stuff, asking when we're going to do this again, and if we're going to do it in other cities than Austin.

What was really cool was all of our curriculum is open source, so we put that out there and we told on our Twitter that people could check out our curriculum. And one morning, we just started getting ding…ding….ding…ding…ding…all of these GitHub pull requests from people in Seattle. And it turned out that a code school in Seattle was using it as part of their curriculum. And so, a couple of those girls reached out and we're like, "Oh, we might be interested in posting one of these in Seattle." And so, hopefully doing something like that would be really fun.

Additionally, just kind of improving the curriculum. We need to sit down and kind of click out the best things about how we approach doing the beginner curriculum, the best things about how we approach doing the intermediate curriculum, and sort of entwine those together. So, a lot of kind of behind the scenes work to get things in place and then a lot of planning to put on the next one.

And so, the biggest thing that limits us from putting on more is money. We need sponsors and we kind of already hit up everybody who does Ember here in Austin. So, we're going to have to expand our reach if we want to put on another one of these at the same quality that we did before.

CHARLES: So, you heard it here. If you're interested in seeing this happen, by all means, reach out and send money.

SHANNON: Yeah.

CHARLES: Lots of money.

SHANNON: You can email me: [email protected], if you want to talk about any of those things. Or hit up our Twitter or our Instagram. Yeah, there's place to contact us if you're interested in helping us out in any way.

STEPHANIE: And it's also important to point out that a lot of those sponsors gave lightning talks.

SHANNON: Yup.

STEPHANIE: So, you can have your plugs in there.

SHANNON: Yeah. You can show up and have a captive audience for five minutes.

CHARLES: Alrighty. In closing, again, I want to kind of go around and ask what was the number one -- we talked about kind of mistakes that were made, things that were learned. In terms of the number one impactful thing that you feel like this event had and this kind of process had either for the external world or even for the internal world, like affecting the way that you work day to day. What has that been? What has that been for you, Lydia?

LYDIA: My favorite part of the entire thing was that some of my best friends and I decided to build a thing that we cared about. And then we watched it grow into something amazing, and then we got to see the people that got to enjoy the beautiful thing that we built. It was just one of those moments where you feel really proud about deciding to take a risk and deciding to kind of put yourself out there and do something that is outside of your comfort zone that makes it totally worthwhile and makes it so that you want to do it again, and again, and again. And I'm just really grateful that Shannon and Steph thought this was a cool idea and just had to make it a real thing.

SHANNON: I was just thinking, as usual Lydia says it best. That's exactly what was so great about it was we did it together, it was great, we want to do it again, we want other people to do it. There's something so inherently rewarding about this experience and it was just so much fun. And I'm so glad that I got to do it with the two of these guys.

CHARLES: Yeah. I think just kind of watching from the sidelines, just the energy that it generated. I think it touched everybody who participated, who volunteered, and even people like me who just kind of watched it from the sidelines as part of the general community. And so, I am really looking forward to what you guys are going to bring in the future. And I really hope that you don’t allow it to just fall by the wayside and that there is some continuance of it. And I promise I will participate this time.

But thank you, thank you, thank you so much for doing that. It really was wonderful.

Thank you all for coming by and sharing the story of Emberitas. You can find them on Emberitas.com or if you want to reach out directly over Twitter, it's @iheartemberitas. Hopefully, we get to hear from you and we'll continue the discussion. And thank again. Thanks everybody for listening and thanks to you guys for coming.

SHANNON: Thanks for having us.

Steve Klabnik

Show Notes:

Resources:

Transcript:

CHARLES: Hello everybody and welcome to The Frontside Podcast episode 51. I'm here, my name is Charles Lowell. I'll be hosting today. With me is Chris Freeman, also of The Frontside and with us is Steve Klabnik.

Now, most of you probably heard of Steve before. My first encounter with Steve was actually at the LoneStarRuby Conference back in... Gosh, I don't know. It was many, many years ago and he was giving a talk on Shoes, which I also had never heard of before. It was a wonderful story of a code archaeology project where he was kind of investigating, rehabilitating, and in carrying forward a project that the 'why the lucky stiff' had done. That was a wonderful introduction but it was certainly not the last time that I encountered him in his writings and in talks and stuff, mostly within the Ruby community. But it popped up again and again, talking about Rust APIs and always making a point to take a good knowledge that he'd learned and spread it around.

Personally, I've lost track of Steve or hadn't really heard much of what he was doing for a while. But then Chris came into the office and he was always talking about this language called Rust. While I've heard Rust, Chris was just all about it and wanted to have Steve come on the show because it turns out that Steve, you've been really, really, really into Rust these last few years and sounds like concentrating most of your work there.

STEVE: That is totally true and accurate. Also to go back a bit, that means that you are in attendance for my very first conference talk ever.

CHARLES: Really?

STEVE: That was literally the first one.

CHARLES: Wow, it was a great start. That was a great story. It was educational and also touching.

STEVE: Thank you. It's actually interesting because what happened was is that someone else who works on Shoes have encouraged me to submit to RubyConf and I was like, "Who would want to hear me talk at a conference?"

I submitted the talk and RubyConf accepted it and I was really excited. Then a bunch of other conferences noticed and two other conferences had asked me to give a talk before RubyConf happens and LoneStar was one of them and it was the first one chronologically. That moment was also very special to me as well.

CHARLES: Fantastic. What year was that?

STEVE: I want to say it was like 2012 or 2011. It’s really hard for me to pay attention to time and date. My history is so complicated that I often forget. I've literally told people that I'm 10 years old or younger than I am because I would like mess up to date on the things. It just happens.

CHARLES: Yeah, but it was a while ago and it's been quite a journey, in between now and then.

STEVE: Yeah, definitely and you're also definitely right. It is now literally my day job to work on Rust so it is definitely the focus of most of my efforts. Partly, why I made that happen was because it was the focus of all my hobby efforts before I made my job. It’s definitely been a couple of years that I've been a full-time on all the Rust stuff.

CHARLES: How was it that you actually got into Rust? How did you hear about it before everybody else and how did it capture your attention?

STEVE: I've always liked programming languages and learning different programming languages. Ruby was sort of where I became known professionally. But it wasn't the first language that I knew and I knew it was never going to be the last. As much as I always loved Ruby and I'm like literally have a tattoo on my body so I will be with Ruby forever. I always try to learn new stuff and I find it exciting.

I'm from middle of nowhere, Pennsylvania in the suburbs of Pittsburgh on a cattle farm and I was visiting my parents for Christmas one year. There’s not really a whole lot to do out of the very small town so I was just reading the internet, as usual and it turns out that that was the day that Rust 0.5 had been released. I saw this release announcement go by and I was like, "I vaguely heard of this programming language once or twice maybe. I don't have anything to do. Let's give it a try."

I downloaded and installed it. I looked at their tutorial and the tutorial has a problem that a lot of tutorials had, which is I read it, I said, "This all makes sense," I tried this down to write a program, and I had no idea how to actually write a program in it at all. I'm just completely confused. I couldn't actually apply the sort of syntax stuff that I learned.

At the same time, I was going to be working on this hypermedia book -- that was my plans for that trip -- as always, you just rewrite your tooling over and over again. You [inaudible] like, "Just don't write the thing. Write the tools that make the thing," so I wanted to try out a new way to take mark down and generate PDFs in HTML, involving pandoc. I sort of had that all set up and I said, "Well, let me give this a try run. What I'm going to do is I'm going to write down what I learned in Rust as I learned it," and sort of from a Ruby programmers perspective, I'll use that and working with my new tooling to see if it works to actually work on the real book and it will also help me understand Rust better because one of the reasons why I do all this sort of teaching and advocacy is because I think it helps me learn.

Just as much as I like helping other people learn stuff, I find that the repetition and being forced to explain something to someone else really make sure that I understand what I'm talking about. That's what the thing called Rust for Rubyist became boring. I'm a sucker for alliteration and that sort of became the first to tutorial for Rust from outside of the Rust projects proper.

From there, I went on to submit some pull requests because everything's open source so I wrote some documentation and funny enough, my first ever pull request to Rust was actually rejected based on procedural grounds. At the time, they didn't actually accept pull request to master, they accept this other weird branch and GitHub don't have the ability to re-target the branch of the pull request.

I also, always like this story because the thing that I now on the core team of, like my first attempt at getting involved was wrong and was turned down. But I'd fixed that pull request issue and got that in but it is kind of kept working on an open source capacity for a while and then decided to ask Mozilla if I can make it my job. Luckily they said yes.

CHARLES: Wow, so what? Your job at Mozilla, like you just kind of showed up and said, "I would like to have a pretty cool, awesome job, working on this brand new language," and they were like, "Sure, come on in?"

STEVE: To some degree, yes. That’s one way of putting it. There is always the devil in these details. The first thing is that that wouldn't have worked if I had wanted a different kind of job. But when someone comes to you and says, "I would like to write documentation for you all day," you go, "Oh, my gosh. This literally never happens."

If I had wanted to like work on the compiler, I'm pretty sure they would have said no. But because they knew documentation was important and they wanted documentation and because I had already been basically doing that job in an open source way, it's like I've had a year-long interview already.

Then finally, they actually didn't have headcount at the time so I actually moved on as a contractor initially and had to do some freelance work and then eventually, once we were able to hire a new person kind of got it in. They're like a cool kid story. It’s like, "Oh, yeah. I totally asked Mozilla for my perfect dream job and they just gave it to me," but like that's not really the way that it works.

CHARLES: Got you. That actually leads me into a question that I have wanted to ask you. You write a very good documentation as your day job and documentation is extremely hard. For me, it is extremely hard to get and stay motivated to document something that I've worked on. I think that is probably a common enough experience for programmers.

We don't recognize because we use documentation that it's extremely valuable and yet, it still this thing that is just a constant uphill battle. I'm curious, how do you manage to stay motivated to write documentation for an entire programming language over the span of years?

STEVE: As I'm often want to do, this has like three or four different components. I guess, there's a couple of different things involved. The first one is that I actually got accepted to go to English grad school, although I ended up not pursuing that. Like writing, it's something I have just always enjoyed.

I got a Bachelor in Computer Science but then I was going to go to grad school for English and due to university shenanigans, it didn't really work out. They told me I was going to get a free ride and then accepted me and then they were like, "Oh, wait sorry. You have to pay for this."

And I was like, "Wait, sorry. No, I'm not doing this anymore. That's ridiculous." That's kind of always a predilection for writing and I think that the reason why that is because I grew up basically like on Slashdot and eventually then on Dig and Reddit and all these other things. I've kind of been writing a couple paragraphs a day, basically every day in my life since I was a little kid. I think that's something that's sort of like underappreciated.

Documentation is hard but it's like a skill, like any other thing. Programmers will say, "I really want to learn TDD so I'm going to make myself do some TDD, I'm going to practice it, I'm going to focus on it and that's going to be a skill that I'm going to improve," and then they see documentation, and they kind of think it's this thing that you either have the skill or you don't. But writing is just another thing like anything else that you can practice at and get better.

I think maybe it's because it's a little bit farther away from the wheel house of what you do day to day, that people aren't as interested in it but it is something you're truly interested in, I think the best way to get better is just to do it and do it a lot. I say this is I'm kind of in the middle of a little bit of writer's block at the moment to be honest.

Then finally, I think the other reason that I'm motivated about docs is that I actually believe that documentation is an exercise in empathy. Like good documentation, the ideal as a programmer, the ideal thing that happens in documentation is I have a question about how to use something, I go to the documentation, and it says the exact sentence that answers my exact question.

As those varying degrees of vaguely gives you the right idea, versus literally tells you exactly what to do. I think that the way that you can accomplish that excellent documentation is by understanding what your users need and then preemptively figuring it and/or writing that down. I think that that requires being able to put yourself in their shoes to some degree. I'm not going to say that that's a thing that I am perfect at but I think that a valuable skill when trying to improve docs's like figure out what they actually need and then give it to them. It's doesn't always have to be in that order, like sometimes people will fail to find the thing they need, tell you what you need, and then you give it to them. That's a strategy I've used a lot and that's one reason why I hang out in the Rust IRC all the time, helping people is for a very long time, I would like sit in IRC, someone would ask a question, I would answer the question, I'd go look in the docs and see if they could have figured out themselves. If they couldn't, that would be might next doc PR.

It's just like even if it's just a couple sentences like add the question from IRC into the documentation and then just do that over and over and over again and then eventually, people start learning from the docs instead of actually ask questions because they already found what they needed.

CHARLES: Right. I have a question about that because once you develop those skill, I think you also still run the risk of like burning out. I know that one of the reasons I tend to always fall back to like, "I'm going to spend my time doing coding instead of documentation," Or, "I'm going to spend my time --" Even with TDD is a great example is like with TDD you get to experience those short term wins.

I think that kind of prevents you from burning out, where sometimes when I'm writing documentation, it feels like I'm screaming at the void. I might be screaming really loud and really, really well but I feel like a lot of times, I'm not experiencing those wins and I'm wondering if you have any tips for like experiencing those wins. Or getting that feedback to kind of keep you motivated and keep you doing the job. Also, trying to push the level of your own documentation skill and communications skill.

STEVE: Yeah, experiencing the wins is definitely a part of it. But one of the other things that is sort of part of it is that like I do the opposite. I do a lot of coding but that's my side projects. When I get fed up with writing documentation, I maintain the [inaudible] implementation that Cargo uses to resolve Rust packages, for example. If I'm feeling a little stuck on docs, I'll go write some software and then come back to the docs so that kind of help with burnout.

Another thing is that I think I'm just like perpetually in a state of just barely above burnout anyway so that also sort of factors in I guess. You know, it's like Bruce Banner. The secret is that I'm always angry so --

CHARLES: So you work on open source, is that what you're saying?

STEVE: Yeah, exactly. We're working on open source all the time. I've been lucky enough to make open source as my job for, basically almost my entire professional career. Although not totally. You know, at some point, you just kind of get used to it. But in terms of experience and the wins, this is also one of the reasons why I like to teach beginners specifically is that beginners allow you to remember what it's like to be a beginner, which is also part of building the empathy.

By interacting with beginners a lot, you also get a lot of those wins because beginners usually ask easy questions so it's easy to figure out the answer that stuff. Then you've got that positive feedback loop kind of going. To me it's maybe not IRC literally for every project but answering questions on Stack Overflow, or whatever message board forum you have, or Twitter, like actually interacting with other people. For me at least, that's how I get that kind of sense of not screaming into the void that you have to like go into the void and find the other people there, I guess, that I'm just like come to you necessarily.

CHARLES: Speaking of empathy for beginners, it just occurred to me that we didn't actually talk about what Rust is. We probably should do that. Why don't you tell us a little bit about the Rust, language, as well as, you've mentioned Cargo and [inaudible] ecosystem for us as well? Let’s talk about that.

STEVE: Yeah, totally. Basically, Rust is a new-ish. I should stop saying new because it's almost not really at this point. A kind of new-ish programming language, heavily sponsored by Mozilla in development. Its idea is to become a new low-level programming language. But I always hesitate when I say this because one of my old pitches for Rust used to be like, "Rust could be used anywhere. You can use C."

Then people go, "I would never write, C is so cool. Rust is not for me." I'm like not do that.

But the reason that people don't use C is a lot of the problems that we are also trying to fix. I guess the primary differentiator for Rust in terms of like programming languages theory is that it is safe and safety as they got specific meaning. But basically C is a very dangerous sharp tool and you can cut yourself and people who use those tools often do cut themselves, whereas Rust is like it's got a safety guard on it. It's a compiled language so its compiler actively prevents you from making some of the worst mistakes that you can make in a low-level programming language like C. It turns out that when you start building up these sort of safe abstractions on top of these really fundamentally low-level details, you actually end up with a relatively high-level programming language.

I talked to a lot of people, for example from JavaScript or Ruby world or Python world who come to Rust that are modulus, some libraries, and other things. This is actually high-level enough that I feel like I could do this instead of review JavaScript all day and I would be just as comfortable.

The other day, I did a little bit pair programming and we actually recreated a JavaScript library in Rust that had virtually the same interface because like you can actually build relatively high-level things so pass an enclosure to a function that does some stuff is totally normal and Rust world. That's also very familiar to people that come from the Ruby, JavaScript, Python background.

Also then, as part of that is we also culturally like Rust the projects, not Rust the programming language, really, really cares about helping people understand what systems programming and like lower-level programming means. A lot of people will not program and in C or C++ because they have no idea how to get help or to learn because many people in the low-level space have this RTFM attitude or like, "If you don't know what you're doing, then get out of here," whereas in Rust world, if you ask an extremely basic question, we're like, "Welcome. We would love to have you. I would be very happy to like walk you through," like explaining how that works on these kind of low-level details. Part of the culture of Rust is to bring this sort of low-level programming to people that have rejected it before for various reasons.

The reason that Mozilla cares and the reason Mozilla sponsored the project is that Firefox is written in C++, so like four million lines of C++ last I checked. Last time we did a security audit of a really pants-on-fire, terrible security bugs in Firefox, I go to this website and now they run arbitrary code on my machine kinds of terrifying bugs. Basically happened because C++ is dangerous and sharp. If you screw up, there's the kind of bad things that can happen. About 50% of those security issues in Firefox would be eliminated at compile time by the Rust compiler. That’s a really huge win in general so the idea is that we are slowly rewriting Firefox and Rust over time. That’s one angle of why Mozilla cares about Rust.

The second part is Servo, which is a rendering engine that's built in Rust from the ground up. If you think about Firefox proper, it's got Gecko as the rendering engine inside that actually determines where things go on the page and stuff. We’re also writing a new one of those from scratch called Servo in Rust. That was also to prove that the language was doing the kind of things that we need it to do. But also Servo is an impressive piece of technology in its own right so it might become its own thing and/or bits and pieces of it are already making their way into Firefox. It’s kind of also a way to improve our core products. That's why Mozilla cares.

CHRIS: I was curious with Servo and Servo is the layout engine. Do you know if there are any plans to write a JavaScript runtime in Rust?

STEVE: That question is complicated. Sort of what it boils down to is that a Git is inherently kind of unsafe by Rust definition of unsafety. It's actually controversial like when I talk to people that work on JavaScript engines, they're pretty much 50/50 split between, "Oh, yeah. Totally Let's absolutely rewrite the whole thing in Rust because we rewrite it every two or three years anyway from scratch so why not use Rust next time," to, "Since it's massively unsafe anyway, I don't see what benefit I would actually get so why not just stick with what we know." It's like very extreme ends. It’s definitely feasible but I don't know if it's going to happen and/or when exactly.

CHARLES: There were two questions that I had kind of to unpack some of the things that you said in there that were just really interesting to me. You said Mozilla plans to incrementally rewrite Firefox in Rust, where it's currently four million lines of C++. Now, how does that actually work where you're talking about swapping out large parts of the runtime with something that's written in a completely separate language? How does that communication happen between those language boundaries?

STEVE: There's this concept called an ABI, not API. It may sound very similar -- Application Binary Interface. What this really boils down to is assembly language does not have function calls. That’s not a concept, that's in assembly. People have come up with, "If I write a function and I map it to assembly code, what's the convention about how I do things like passing an argument and return values? How those all that stuff actually work?"

Because assembly is so low-level, there are multiple different ways that you can make that happen. There's a number of different specifications how to make that work so C, the programming language, has a very straightforward ABI so any programming language that knows how to call C functions, uses these convention at the assembly level to do the function call. What you can do with Rust is you can say, "Please make this Rust function follow the C calling convention," in that way, any sort of thing that knows how to call C functions can call Rust functions directly.

By doing that, you can sort of say like take a chunk of code, write it in Rust, expose a C interface, and then anything that knows how to talk to C, which is virtually everything, can talk to Rust equally as well. For example, one of the earliest production uses of Rust was actually inside of a Ruby gem because Ruby can be extended to C and Ruby knows how to have C extensions. It doesn't actually need to know that it's literally written in C. It just needs to know how to generate the assembly to call the correct functions. That’s actually like a thing. Basically, the process is like write a component in Rust, expose this language independent wrapper, and then call into it like you would in C code.

CHARLES: So it's really, just they're sharing memory and sharing is like right there in the process and there's no overhead for the intercommunication, it sounds like?

STEVE: Yeah, exactly. You could also do all the regular things with JSON-RPC over a socket or whatever if you wanted to. The most efficient way is to literally include it as your binary just like anything else.

CHARLES: Which kind of leads me into my next question, which is Rubyist and Pythonista people coming from JavaScript, one of the reasons we don't like to write in C is because, as you mentioned, they're so sharp so we have safety so that you don't have to worry about memory allocation for the most part, the garbage collector kind of has your back there. You access things by reference so you never have to worry about accessing memory. That's not there but kind of the conventional wisdom is that that all comes with a pretty big cost. It's like really, really expensive.

I know when I was getting into Ruby and I was explaining a lot of the pushback I got from people doing C and even Java, it was like, "It's going to be super slow because all those high-level features that you love so much, you're paying a lot. A lot for them." My understanding is that's not really true with Rust. Is that fair to say?

STEVE: Well, Rust does not have a garbage collector so, yes, it does not pay that cost because it doesn't exist. Now, that also raises a bunch of other interesting questions and basically what it boils down to is a compiler and especially one that has a typesystem, basically asks you to declare certain properties of your code like this function takes one argument only and it's always a string. That’s sort of what type safety means. It kind of like a fundamental level.

One of the ways that Rust uses type safety is to say, "This pointer to this memory always points to valid memory," and you have to be able to demonstrate that to me at compile time. From those couple of sentences, that sounds extremely complicated but it turns out that most programming code is written in a way that actually works this way.

For example, like I'd talk to Yehuda Katz a number of times because we're friends, he also works on the Rust project and he's also well-known in JavaScript and to you all, I would assume. It turns out that the style of Rust code I write is actually extremely similar to the style of JavaScript code that I write is just sometimes there are some tweaks. It is true that those features often do take up a lot of memory and/or rely on any sort of expensive, from a low-level perspective, way of doing things. But it turns out that's actually more of a function of the way that the programming language is made in semantics. You could design a programming language that feels very similar but as very different underlying characteristics.

For example, Closures in Rust, the compiler is smart enough to know that if you don't actually capture an environment. Say you're going to add one to every number in a list. You want to do like .map, pass in a closure that takes one argument X and adds one to every single X and then collect that up into like the map join kind of thing, to collect into a new array. That closure that you had passed a map, while it's a closure, it's taking that one argument X and doing X + 1, so it's not really capturing an environment at all.

There’s actually no reason to allocate a bunch of extra memory because it turns out, it's the same thing as a regular function. The compiler is able to optimize that call away completely to the same thing as if it was a normal function and not a closure, and therefore, you're paying no overhead. Even though, like syntactically, it looks kind of like a closure.

Then you're kind of think of that applied to almost everything in Rust. For example, Rust has methods but almost all of them are actually statically dispatched at compile time, as supposed to dynamically dispatched, where you need to look through some sort of object hierarchy because we don't really have inheritance. There's no way to say like this might result to a colon, this class or this class is super class, or this class is super class so I have to do this runtime look up to call functions that just doesn't actually really exist.

Part of it is through the fact that these coding patterns don't strictly require this stuff. It’s just the way those languages are built and part of it is because as we were building a language, we were extremely sensitive to not include features that would require this really heavy overhead. In a language, that's like a low-level of focus on details, it's extremely hard to talk about the details without code. There's a lot of details, it turns out.

CHRIS: One thing that I'm very curious about and one of the things that drew me to Rust actually is the fact that its typesystem is, I guess an ML typesystem. It is like much more [inaudible] to something that you would see in a functional programming language like Haskell, than you would like a regular C++ or Java.

CHARLES: Now, a Chris-acronym alert. What is an ML-style typesystem?

CHRIS: I'm sure Steve can answer this better than I can but it's a typesystem that uses the Hindley-Milner algorithm for type inference. It does a lot of the heavy lifting for you, in terms of correctness. Is that correct?

STEVE: Yeah, I would say more accurately, ML is a programming language. It's the name of the language so by saying like an ML-like typesystem, he means like a Java-type typesystem. It's like a similar statement but about a different language. I always forget what ML stands for specifically but like OCaml has got ML at the end so like OCaml is one of the languages that sort of the family of ML.

There’s like two branches of functional programming, which of course everything is wrong when you try to organize things this way. Like you could also argue Lisp as a third but there's kind of like the Haskell-style and the ML-style are these two big pillars of functional language stuff and Rust tends to be in the ML sort of family. There’s lots of common features between families of programming languages and all that kind of stuff.

I think the ultimate point that Chris is trying to make is when I say that Rust is a typesystem, I do not mean it's like Java. There is a wide variety of typesystems and they do all sorts of different things and actually Java has been getting increasingly better over the years as well. But it is much more canned to a functional language in the typesystem, which I think is what you were getting at and serves the actual question, right?

CHRIS: Yeah. Actually, I just looked it up and ML stands for MetaLanguage. It is actually is going to serve my question really well. ML was originally designed for theorem improving in math, which is part of why it works really well in functional programming languages. But it also makes sense if you use Rust, how the compiler work from the kinds of things that it catches, like a relatively low effort on your part because it is originally designed to completely prove out a theorem so the compiler is doing that to your program.

That leads to my question which is I recently heard someone else on the Rust core team talk about one of the things that Rust really seeks to improve upon is concurrency and parallelism, which is historically very hard. To do that, you could use things like mutexes or reference counting, which Rust has. But they also lean extremely heavily on the typesystem itself to sort of guarantee that your concurrent code is actually going to run safely.

On one hand, I'm interested in hearing you expound on that but I'm also really curious how the C, C++, Java programmers take to that sort of thing in Rust because as I understand it, that is a pretty novel approach to that kind of problem. I wonder if there's like pushback from the existing low-level systems community on that stuff.

STEVE: I'll do the second part first because it's a little simpler. One thing that I will say is we sort of didn't appreciate over time because we were creating Rust for ourselves, roughly the C++ programmers are working on Firefox, which we had to say for ourselves because I was not literally one of those people but you get the idea, is like assuming that C++ people would be the primary audience.

But it turns out that a lot of people that programming C or C++ are pretty happy with it and they like doing things that way. They're a lot smaller of a population than the number of programmers who do not program of those languages, which is true for any language, basically. The sum of all other people is bigger than your specific thing.

What that means, I think that in retrospect this seems obvious but at the time, it was like hard to figure out or I definitely did not understand this at that time, that most people would come to Rust from not C or C++ than they would from C and C++, just even by virtue of numbers alone.

A lot of the people who are not doing it are not doing it for reasons. They’ve already rejected it for some sort of purpose and the people who are still doing it often are like happy with what's going on. There’s definitely a little skeptical at times of the kinds of things that we can accomplish. Also, our success has been pushing C++ specifically to grow a lot of safety things so we hear a lot of people say like, "In five years, C++ is going to have this tooling that's going to make it also pretty safe, even if it's not as safe as Rust. I'll just wait for that instead." Surprise, low-level programmers are extremely conservative bunch in many instances.

The first part, which is the bigger and more interesting one, the typesystem is absolutely how concurrency works in Rust. This is extremely powerful for a number of different reasons. The first one, and I think the fundamental reason why it's done this way is that typesystems don't have any runtime overhead. When you're in a performance-heavy language, that's really the key.

Originally, a long ago in Rust, we actually had a garbage collector even, like a very long time ago in Rust. The primary goal was always safety and we thought the only way to accomplish that was with lots of runtime checking, heavy runtime, and all these things. Over time, as the typesystem grew, we realized we could use more and more of a typesystem to eliminate more and more of the runtime because types are checked to compile time so they have no overhead cost, which is awesome.

Like Rust references, doing this validation that they're always valid is completely a compile time construct that at runtime, they're literally the same thing as C pointers. That’s one reason why the typesystem is really heavily useful for concurrency because you want things to be safe. We also don't want to slow them down.

The whole point of concurrency in many instances is to get a speed up. If you introduce too many safety checks to make sure that your concurrency stuff works, you lose all the gains that you were trying to get from being concurrent in the first place. Having that like as low-cost as possible is extremely important.

The second one is that concurrent problems are extremely difficult to debug because you need to recreate the exact set of circumstances under which the bug happens. If you have a bug because you have two threads that have a particular access pattern on a particular variable and that's where the bug is introduced, good luck coercing your operating system scheduler into scheduling those two threads at exactly the same way as when the bug happens.

To some degree of the way that you fix a lot of concurrency bugs is by introducing an extreme amount of logging and then just kind of let it run and praying that you hit into the situation that causes the bug. That really brutal and doesn't really work. By using the typesystem and verifying it upfront, you just know it will work at runtime because you've already proved the concurrency property before your code even runs. It’s also just like a better debugging experience, I think in general.

The way that we accomplish this task is extremely novel. I guess I should also say extremely novel to working programmers, like almost all Rust is built off of existing research that has been known in academia for a relatively long time. That's actually one of the places where it gets the name from, it's like taking ten-year old ideas that have a little bit of rust on them, that have found usefulness and bringing them to [inaudible] research.

Anyway, the way we accomplish this basically is the typesystem in the standard library, the way that you spin up a new thread, it has a particular type signature and the type signature says, "Only allow the types to be sent to this new thread. There are safe to pass between threads," and/or like, "Only allow references between this thread and that thread of types that are safe to use across thread."

What that means is that when you try to spin up a thread and you passes a thing that doesn't work, you get a typesystem error. It turns out this is not concurrent safe collection so it does not have the prerequisite types so therefore, you cannot pass on this thread and you're done. That’s sort of like at a core level of how these things work.

Then for example, mutex is a type that does have that property so by sticking with non-concurrency thing into a mutex, now you can share it safely. That means we've guaranteed that the compile time that you'd safely done this transfer between threads and that kind of thing. It’s not just about mutexes but that's sort of the general approach.

The last thing I want to say briefly because I just said a whole bunch of things. I'm sure, I've raised a ton of questions here is that the other powerful thing about using the typesystem for concurrency guarantees is that other people can extend it. If you write a library in Rust, your library will be exactly as concurrency safe as the standard library and as the language itself. It's not like we provide the set of concurrent collections and then we vetted our own implementations and then you're kind of your own or building your own stuff. You can use those exact same types to help guarantee properties on your stuff. Also build alternate threading situations, as well that use the same things and the ecosystem all works together so everything is just concurrency safe by default because it's like a property of typesystems that are being built into the runtime or something.

CHRIS: I know that recently, there's been a lot of, I guess excitement about this library called Tokio. It's not like there's future that kind of like promises in JavaScript, then there have been abstractions just kind of consistently being built up but it seems like Tokio is the next step and it's building towards a whole stack of higher-level concurrency things. Is what you just said enables that kind of thing to happen?

STEVE: Yes. Tokio is using those exact same typesystem features in order to guarantee that when you have a chain of promises, to use the JavaScript terminology instead of future things, that you make sure that they're safe. This is not literally implemented yet but Tokio, for those who are not paid hyper attention to the Rust space because this is a cutting-edge, the library is gearing up for an initial release in the next week or two.

Soon after you hear this or maybe right before you hear this, it's just going to be released. It’s extremely cutting edge. But in some ways it follows sort of the node model of concurrency. There's event loops, you chained together, we call them futures, you call them promises together, you put that pile a future chain and do an event loop and watch the concurrency kind of go.

One example of how Rust can do cool things is you could -- this is not implemented yet but it will be in the future -- run, let's say, five event loops on five different threads. Then you just tell the framework, "Please run this future chain onto one event loop. I don't care which one," and then it will automatically load balance across the five threads and five event loops because you've guaranteed the compile time that everything is safe to pass between threads so we know that that's just trivial to do and therefore it's like not a big deal. We can add those heavy duty features without worrying about introducing very subtle bugs, which is really cool.

CHRIS: That kind of leads me to my next question, which is at The Frontside, we are pretty into web development, in case you didn't know. I am someone who follow Rust a lot and I find it very interesting. But for the most part, I don't have a need to do systems programming on a regular basis. I also wouldn't even really know where to start, if I wanted to do systems programming.

As I learned Rust, I tend to always gravitate towards wanting to do things that I would probably do in Ruby or Python, like write the back-end for some web app or something. That goes okay but Rust is very much still in the process of building those abstractions to the point that it's relatively digestible.

So I have a couple of questions. One is do you see Rust being a thing that would be used by web developers a lot more broadly and two, how would you recommend that people like me who aren't really familiar with systems programming start to really dig into Rust on a deeper level?

STEVE: I would like to think that web programmers will use Rust more often and to be honest, originally, I was extremely skeptical of this. But it's been changing rapidly as time has gone on. Part of that is because as we've gained more experience, actually in programming in Rust, the fact is Rust used to be a lot less ergonomic than it is and now it's fairly ergonomic and will only get more so in the future. That's something that web people or at least, I come from Ruby so Rubyist care a lot about ergonomics, maybe more than anything else frankly.

I'm not sure it's the first tool that you'll reach for but I do believe that sometimes, it makes a lot of sense. As one example that I will use, there's not a whole lot about this but basically, npm has started using Rust on the server side for powering the registry. They have three services in production now but they were basically like JavaScript as a language we all know what is the best language for doing this. We have a service that needs a little more oomph so maybe let's rewrite that in Rust instead and use it for those kind of things.

I think that there's a lot of situations for web developers where they don't realize they have the power to make things faster without just adding on more servers. I think that's kind of like a compelling sort of [inaudible]. Any sort of background job like any sort of job queue thing is like often better written in a faster language but you would not reach for that faster language first because traditionally, those faster languages have been terrible to use. I think we continue to win on the ergonomics and continue to win the libraries that web developers will reach for Rust like more often than not.

In terms of the learning rest on a deeper level, I think that one of the initial things and sounds like maybe you personally are a little past that but maybe not the people who listen this podcast is that I do think that sort of building the things that you would normally build in Ruby or JavaScript or Python is the good first step. For example, right now Advent of Code has been like a really fantastic way of having these little programming projects. If you haven't seen AdventOfCode.com, it's like every day in December up until Christmas, there's a new programming project that you can build the thing in.

I've been doing those in Rust and that's a lot of fun and it's a good way to practice and gain some basic literacy. But after that moving at a low-level stuff, my personal thing and I know something you've expressed interest in the past is my side project is building an operating system in Rust. More so, than just that the pitch is, "You've written JavaScript before. Let's write an operating system together. Here is this companion book and I'll show you how," and that's called intermezzOS. It’s like I'm basically trying to rebuild an operating systems curriculum but in Rust instead from nothing, like we start off with assembly code and move up into Rust code.

CHARLES: Now, you can't even use anything like all the things that we've been describing like threads, kernel level callbacks. You get none of that, right? You have to implement it all from scratch. You can't use POSIX or whatever. You know, 90% of your code ends up going through.

STEVE: It turns out that and it's sort of like for reasons that hopefully I'll be able to fix in the future, you need about like 200 lines of assembly code before you get into Rust and then you basically don't need to use assembly again, really. It’s not that big of a barrier in terms of [inaudible] things and its copy-paste stuff that I explained extremely heavily so it's like totally an accomplished real thing. Then you're in a real programming language and you can do more normal things on top of it.

But one thing about that because it is my side project, the kernel is actually farther along than the tutorial is and I actually need to find some time to write more of the freaking tutorial but this is kind of my personal long-term project over the next, let's say, decade and to have a completely free and open source tutorial for you to learn about operating system developments. That’s one of the things I've been doing.

Another one that I think that is really extremely useful is once you gain some amount of literacy on this, you can actually start to learn more about how your regular programming language works. I've been giving this conference talk recently. It's called 'Exploring Ruby Through Rust', and I'm like, "Once you know this low-level stuff and you gain this literacy, you can look at the source code of your language as interpreter and learn stuff about it and you can contribute to it maybe even."

Maybe that's not the most practical thing or whatever but now that I've spent a bunch of time with Rust, I understand Ruby on a far, deeper level than I ever did before because now I'm not afraid to go poke around in the internals and learn how it really works under the hood and I understand what those internals do far better.

Maybe five years ago, I could have told you like, "Ruby is garbage collector. It's extremely basic. But I don't really know what that means." And now I can be like, "Ruby has this mark and sweep generational garbage collector. But it's not compacting or concurrent yet but maybe in a year or two. Now, that's not just a bunch of buzzwords because I have this low-level literacy."

CHRIS: Yeah, that's definitely something. I forgot about but every time I go learn something in Rust and initially this happens a lot. Every time I do that and I go back to JavaScript or something else, I find that Rust inadvertently taught me something about the language that I actually work on every day. Especially, when it comes to things like references, values, and the difference between them and debugging weird prototype behavior in JavaScript became so much easier after I had spent some time working with Rust and had had to like actually deal with passing around references or dealing with life times or having the compiler yell at me for a lot of things that I thought were totally normal.

Then I'm going back to JavaScript, it's like, "Wait a second --" Suddenly a lot of these pieces are starting to fit together and before what was just as weird mystery, now I can totally see what is happening and start to think about how to fix it. Even though I don't even have the same tools that I do with Rust, it still is extremely useful from that perspective.

STEVE: That's awesome. I'm glad to hear it. That’s how I definitely felt with Ruby for sure.

CHARLES: You know, in terms of actually using it for day to day stuff, is there other plans, is the ecosystem already supporting things, say, a web framework? Like a low-level web framework like Sinatra or Express or even higher one like Rails.

STEVE: I guess, like you've already qualified it as web stuff. But I would say, in a broader sense, whether or not Rust is ready today for you, it depends entirely on the ecosystem. I feel like 80% is productive in Rust as I did ever in Ruby. But that's only if there's a library that I don't have to rewrite myself because it doesn't exist yet. That number is actually growing rapidly so I just look because it's like the end of the year and our package ecosystem is actually doubles. This is a request from earlier. I didn't expect Cargo so Rust basically has bundler or yarn/npm built into the language itself. We distribute it with Rust and we have all that great package ecosystem shenanigans.

Another great example of Rust over a language like C is the tooling. Basically, what happened was Yehuda and I kind of showed up in Rust world and we're like, "Why are you still using make files. We know a better way."

And they're like, "Okay." Then he builds the equivalent of bundler for Rust. Then everyone's like, "Oh, yeah. This is way better. We're not using make files anymore."

The tooling situation is very familiar to a dynamic programming language person because we literally had the same people write the tools. That also means you can share packages freely and briefly so operating system development thing is totally intense to be able to use your package manager to download packages to help you build an operating system.

For example, X86 has custom assembly instructions that you need to use when interacting with the hardware and someone has already built a package on [inaudible] that wraps the inline assembly up in a nice to use Rust functions. I can just include that package and use it when building my operating system, which is totally mind-blowing. The npm is sort of feel into OS development is just real intense and cool.

Back to the ecosystem thing, though. For web application specifically, it's good and also bad. There’s actually multiple different web frameworks already at different levels of comparison. For example, you have Nickle which is kind of like Sinatra and you have Pencil, which is kind of like Flask and Python, which is also kind of like Sinatra. Then you have Iron, which is kind of like expressed in JavaScript.

There’s also like I know of at least two. One of is has been worked on but it's not been actually released. But the code is at least open source yet. I know a second that is being developed fully in private that has not had any public release yet. Then when the Tokio stuff comes out, People are going to be building new frameworks on top of the new async shenanigans and/or porting the async stuff into the existing frameworks.

We kind of have a lot of options but there's also a lot of churn and activity and stuff going on in that space so that either terrifies you or makes you enthusiastic. They're basically is like that. We definitely don't have a Rails yet. I don't think that's because a Rails will never exist but because it's a much bigger project to build a Rails than to build a Sinatra.

CHARLES: Yeah, and you just need those foundational pieces there in place before you really want to attempt that.

STEVE: And I think Tokio is the real foundational piece and it's just taken us a long time to put it all together. The initial tests in Tokio, we could do a 'Hello, World' benchmark like the tech and power benchmark. Some of you are already familiar with those things, or not, they're like 'Hello, World' benchmark. We actually got faster than they are fat than all of them. It just edged out the fastest Java, which is currently the reigning benchmark on it. That’s like extremely compelling.

Even if after all this stuff is built on top of it but it's taken us a while to build those foundations and we're just getting that point like Tokio is going to have a release, hopefully before Christmas. I've been assured by the end of the year and then people are going to build stuff on top of it and it's just going to explode from there.

Here's another little interesting pitch. I'll give you for this, is that one of the things I like about Rust on early ecosystem is it means that if you want to be that person who built the library that does X that everyone uses, there's lots of opportunity in Rust world right now. Where there's a lot of foundational libraries that you could be the person who wrote that thing when everyone knows and loves and uses. Like JavaScript is still kind of there.

In Ruby, every library basically exists already so there's no more room to build a foundational thing. But if you're someone who likes working on open source and that story is compelling to you like getting involved in a younger ecosystem, it means that you can have a much larger impact. I maintained the [inaudible] library that things used. The only reason that's true is because I was around before we had one and then Yehuda wrote the initial version and now, I'm maintaining it. There’s tons of space out there so if writing a web framework is the thing that's interesting to you, Rust is a great place to explore and actually doing that at the moment.

CHARLES: Steve, one of the things that I know you do is you actually write the Rust Book. I heard that you're also in the process of rewriting it along with Carol Goulding, I believe. I was wondering if you could tell us a little bit about that.

STEVE: As part of this Steve getting the job right in the docs on Rust thing, I kind of working on lots of stuff so up to Rust 1.0, we knew we needed to have some long form explain all the things that Rust so that became what's called the Rust programming language which I named so because the C programming language and the C++ programming language, the names of the foundational books for those languages so I wanted to continue kind of in that tradition.

But there is some problems with that which is I'll say that I'm a little harder on my own work than I think other people are so I hear people tell me all the time that they love the Rust Book and that it's like one of the best programming books that have ever written. But I think it's not that great. The reason why is also because I just know that the way in which I wrote it.

You have to remember that Rust 1.0 happened in May of 2015. We were working on language for six or eight years before 1.0 happened so there was lots of changes, language is changing on a daily basis. Now, it's super stable like super, super, super stable. But what that also means is in some like deeper philosophical sense, nobody had had experience programming in what really was Rust yet because we were still like finishing building it's so like how do you write a book on a language that like the precursor language is what you're using and you're trying to see like what is it going to actually end up being like at 1.0. Because it's not like we can just say, "It's done. Now, go write a book, Steve and then we'll release it at that time."

The circumstances in which I wrote the original book were I had a very intense deadline of this has to be done by the 15th of May. While the language was coming together, it takes a couple months to put together a book so I had to make sure that the stuff I was starting I would need to go back and re-fix. That also means that I was like much more vague in some places where pieces were still falling into place and you're like, "This is definitely going to be the same. But this might change so I'm going to leave that part off," and then I just have to plow through because the deadline.

All those things coming together means that I kind of put together this book that while good and I'm proud of the work that I did, I can do much better. At this point in time, we now have a full year and a half after Rust 1.0 has come out. I know the struggles that people have when learning Rust. I know the ways in which they succeed or fail and I've talked to a lot of people so I'm sort of rewriting the book now, bringing that knowledge and understanding in as well as the fact that the language just been around for a minute so it's much easier.

As part of that, I brought on Carol. She goes by Carol Nichols or Goulding. She both has her maiden name and her married name. She's been one of my best friends for a very long time so I'm extremely happy that she's my co-author on this book. The two of us together and working on doing the rewrite, I think that it is possibly the best thing I've ever done or worked on as far as books go, like I'm extremely happy with it and you can read it online right now, if you want to and see if I'm right or wrong about that.

But I think it's a far better book than the original book was. It’s actually going to publish at No Starch as well. We’re donating all the proceeds to charities since we're being paid to actually write the book in the first place, like [inaudible]. It's going to be a much, much easier and better way to learn the language, I think as well.

CHARLES: If we want to check that out, where can we find the new version?

STEVE: I'll give you a link to put in show notes or whatever as well. But it's Rust-Lang.GitHub.io/book. There’s also just like a book repo in the Rust Lang organization on GitHub. All things in Rust is being developed fully in the open so you can read the drafts and see what's been done where. We're getting towards the end, slowly but surely so I'm hoping that's going to be done relatively soon.

CHRIS: Well, I'm looking forward to it.

CHARLES: Fantastic. Sounds like the documentation is there. It's excellent. The community is there. It's excellent and from what I'm hearing like the kind of the tower of the ecosystem is really being built up. It's not as high as a bunch of other places but it's definitely high enough to jump in and get your feet wet. If you're you know coming from almost any walk of programming.

STEVE: It's a lot of work but we seem to be doing good.

CHARLES: All right. Well, thanks for stopping in and talking about this with us, Steve.

STEVE: Thanks so much for having me. It's been a lot of fun.

CHARLES: Yeah, and now Chris, we do need to kind of figure out what is going to be our Rust project here at The Frontside.

CHRIS: I'm up for that challenge.

CHARLES: Yeah, that'll be some Christmas homework. All right-y. Take care everybody and thanks, as always, for listening. We’ll see you next week.