HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
adobe
chromium
C++2016–2017
adobe / chromium · Archived

chromium

Experiments and contributions to Chromium project

3Distinct people
3Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
219GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Experiments and contributions to Chromium project

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 1:49:46 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by week3 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2016-10-18 17:10:43 UTC to 2017-03-08 17:11:27 UTC. Weeks start Monday, UTC.

012016-10-17 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-10-24 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsOct 172016-10-24 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-10-31 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-10-31 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-11-07 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-11-07 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-11-14 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-11-14 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-11-21 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-11-21 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-11-28 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-11-28 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-12-05 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-12-05 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-12-12 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-12-12 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-12-19 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-12-19 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-12-26 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-12-26 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-02 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsDec 262017-01-02 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-09 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-01-09 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-16 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2017-01-16 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-23 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-01-23 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-30 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-01-30 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-02-06 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-02-06 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-02-13 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-02-13 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-02-20 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-02-20 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-02-27 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-02-27 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-03-06 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-03-06 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-03-13 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsMar 6

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Oct 172016-10-17 00:00:00 UTC2016-10-24 00:00:00 UTC101
Oct 242016-10-24 00:00:00 UTC2016-10-31 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 312016-10-31 00:00:00 UTC2016-11-07 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 72016-11-07 00:00:00 UTC2016-11-14 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 142016-11-14 00:00:00 UTC2016-11-21 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 212016-11-21 00:00:00 UTC2016-11-28 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 282016-11-28 00:00:00 UTC2016-12-05 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 52016-12-05 00:00:00 UTC2016-12-12 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 122016-12-12 00:00:00 UTC2016-12-19 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 192016-12-19 00:00:00 UTC2016-12-26 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 262016-12-26 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-02 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 22017-01-02 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-09 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 92017-01-09 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-16 00:00:00 UTC101
Jan 162017-01-16 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-23 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 232017-01-23 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-30 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 302017-01-30 00:00:00 UTC2017-02-06 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 62017-02-06 00:00:00 UTC2017-02-13 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 132017-02-13 00:00:00 UTC2017-02-20 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 202017-02-20 00:00:00 UTC2017-02-27 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 272017-02-27 00:00:00 UTC2017-03-06 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 62017-03-06 00:00:00 UTC2017-03-13 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

3 sources
As someone looking in from outside, the Chrome codebase is a treat. Anecdote. Once during the start of my career I was asked to implement a caching layer in an HTTP library. I had no idea what it was, so there was some reading up to do. There were the excellent guides from mnot.net, as well as the nicely written RFC 2616. But Chrome's code was the best of all - https://github.com/adobe/chromium/blob/master/net/http/http_.... If you want to know for a fact how Chrome decides caching, that code is kind of the heart of it. Recently I needed to retrieve the "Rendered Font Name" that is available in the DevTools "Computed CSS" section. This is the name of the system font that Chrome finally picks, based on the Font-Family property. This is platform specific and so not in DOM, nor available to Chrome Extensions directly. The only way it could b
Read the rest
e done was by making an extension running in debug mode and communicates to the browser thru its remote debugger protocol. (This part of the documentation is lacking, but it is an esoteric topic anyway). The good news was that the code that does this is well encapsulated and could be easily extracted into a command line utility. For the curious: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/thir... (there is a nugget about real-world software in the comments) This is, at a surface level, good code to me. Things are easy to find, there is a rhyme and rhythm to the system, and feels welcoming. The thoughts of the people who designed that system over years would be great to hear. Most writing about good code on the internet comes from an OO background, mostly wrt information systems. I wonder what people who've written these systems have to say about building and engineering complex software.
In Working on Chrome made me develop a tool for reading source code

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.