Bazel's next generation focuses on improving build performance and developer experience. Key changes include Starlark, a Python-like language for build rules offering more flexibility and maintainability, as well as a transition to a new execution phase, Skyframe v2, designed for increased parallelism and scalability. These upgrades aim to simplify complex build processes, especially for large projects, while also reducing overall build times and improving caching effectiveness through more granular dependency tracking and action invalidation. Additionally, remote execution and caching are being streamlined, further contributing to faster builds by distributing workload and reusing previously built artifacts more efficiently.
The blog post "The next generation of Bazel builds" explores the evolution and future direction of Bazel, a powerful build system known for its speed, scalability, and correctness. It highlights the significant improvements coming to Bazel's user experience and its potential impact on developer workflows.
The author begins by acknowledging the historical steep learning curve associated with Bazel, primarily due to its Starlark build language and the complexities of configuring it. They argue that while Bazel's performance benefits are undeniable, this initial hurdle has often deterred wider adoption. The post then pivots to discuss how recent and upcoming developments are poised to dramatically simplify the Bazel experience.
A core focus of the post is Bzlmod, a new module system for Bazel. Bzlmod aims to streamline dependency management by introducing a standardized, declarative way to specify and manage external dependencies. This eliminates the previous ad-hoc methods, which often involved manually patching workspaces and navigating intricate compatibility issues. Bzlmod uses a lockfile mechanism, ensuring reproducible builds and simplifying dependency resolution. The author emphasizes how Bzlmod will transform dependency management into a predictable and manageable process, a vast improvement over the previous system.
Beyond Bzlmod, the post touches on other significant advancements. These include improvements to Starlark itself, making it more user-friendly and less prone to errors. The author also mentions advancements in remote execution and caching, further enhancing Bazel's speed and efficiency. The enhanced caching mechanisms are touted to drastically reduce build times, especially in larger projects. Remote execution, already a powerful feature of Bazel, is being refined to provide even more seamless and scalable builds, further optimizing the development process.
The author paints a picture of a future where Bazel's power is accessible to a much broader audience. With the complexities of configuration and dependency management significantly reduced, they envision a streamlined developer experience where builds are fast, reliable, and easy to manage. The post concludes by highlighting the collaborative efforts within the Bazel community that are driving these improvements, suggesting a dynamic and actively evolving ecosystem. The overall tone is optimistic, portraying Bazel as a build system on the cusp of mainstream adoption, thanks to these ongoing efforts to enhance its usability.
Summary of Comments ( 50 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43601356
Hacker News commenters generally agree that Bazel's remote caching and execution are powerful features, offering significant build speed improvements. Several users shared positive experiences, particularly with large monorepos. Some pointed out the steep learning curve and initial setup complexity as drawbacks, with one commenter mentioning it took their team six months to fully integrate Bazel. The discussion also touched upon the benefits for dependency management and build reproducibility. A few commenters questioned Bazel's suitability for smaller projects, suggesting the overhead might outweigh the advantages. Others expressed interest in alternative build systems like BuildStream and Buck2. A recurring theme was the desire for better documentation and easier integration with various languages and platforms.
The Hacker News post titled "The next generation of Bazel builds" (linking to a blogsystem5.substack.com article about Bazel) has generated a moderate number of comments, many of which delve into the nuances and practicalities of using Bazel.
Several commenters discuss Bazel's performance characteristics. One notes that while Bazel boasts impressive incremental build speeds, clean builds can be significantly slower, sometimes even outpaced by traditional tools like Make. Another commenter points out the high resource demands of Bazel, particularly its memory consumption, posing challenges for developers with limited resources.
The conversation also touches upon Bazel's complexity and the learning curve associated with its adoption. Some commenters acknowledge the initial investment required to understand Bazel's concepts and configuration but argue that the long-term benefits in terms of build speed and scalability justify the effort. Others express frustration with the perceived opacity of Bazel's inner workings and the difficulty of debugging build issues.
A few commenters share their experiences with Bazel in different environments. One recounts success using Bazel to manage a complex C++ project, praising its ability to handle dependencies and enforce build consistency. Another describes challenges integrating Bazel with existing workflows and tooling.
The topic of remote caching and execution also emerges, with commenters highlighting the potential for significant performance gains by leveraging shared caches and distributed build infrastructure. However, the discussion also acknowledges the practical considerations of setting up and maintaining such systems.
Overall, the comments paint a picture of Bazel as a powerful but complex build tool. While many appreciate its capabilities, they also acknowledge the challenges and trade-offs involved in its adoption. The discussion doesn't reach a definitive consensus on whether Bazel is the "right" tool for every project, suggesting that the decision depends heavily on the specific needs and context of the development team.