Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Antigravity

antigravity.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–680 of 1001 posts

Re: Google Antigravity

#671

Post by Bayaz »

apsurd wrote: post #660
throwaway13337 wrote: post #439

I gave it a fair shot. It is a vs code fork. There were some UI glitches. Some usability was better. Cursor has some real annoying usability issues - like their previous/next code change never going away and no way to disable it. Design of this one looks more polished and less muddy. I was working on a project and just continued with it. It was easy because they import setting from cursor. Feels like the browser wars…

speaking of paying for LLMs, am i doing something wrong? i paid cursor $192 for a year of their entry level plan and i never run out of anything. I code professionally, albeit i'm at the stage where it's 80% product dev in finding the right thing to build. Is there another world where $200/m is needed to run hundreds of agents or something? am i behind and i dont even know it?

When did you pay for it? There was a time when its limits were very generous. If you bought an annual plan at that time then you will continue with that until renewal. Or, alternatively, you’re using the Auto model which is still apparently unlimited. That’s going away.

It’s very easy to run into limits if you choose more expensive models and aren’t grandfathered.

Re: Google Antigravity

#672

Post by WD-42 »

cyberax wrote: post #573
charliebwrites wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is a vs code fork Google may have won the browser wars with Chrome, but Microsoft seems to be winning the IDE wars with VSCode

15 years ago, every company had its own "BlahBlah Studio" IDE built on top of Eclipse. Now it's VSCode. Meanwhile, JetBrains IDEs are still the best, but remain unpopular outside of Android Studio.

I just checked and I don’t even have the JVM installed on my machine. It seems like Java is dead for consumer applications. Not saying that’s why they aren’t popular but I’m sure it doesn’t help.

Re: Google Antigravity

#673

Post by verdverm »

Aurornis wrote: post #657
verdverm wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why? I don't have a problem with it, building extensions for VS Code is pretty easy Alternatives have a lot of features to implement to reach parity

Complaining about Electron is an ideological battle, not a practical argument. The people who push these arguments don’t care that it actually runs very well on even below average developer laptops, they think it should have been written in something native.

same people pushing rust as "it's just faster" without considering the complexities that exist outside the language that impact performance?

Re: Google Antigravity

#674

Post by briandw »

I tried it. Maybe I got unlucky, but Gemini performed poorly in my testing. I gave it a task that I was working on with VSCode and GPT codex 5.1. Gemini3 repeatedly failed to finish the task and started to go down a rabbit hole on an unrelated task.

The browser extension is really cool and it provides a needed tool for the agent to use. It used the extension to show the page that it updated in the task document (the task doc is great too). However it showed me a page and did it was done, when it was clearly not done and not what I asked for.

I was expecting weaker tooling and a better model. I got good tooling and a not very good model.

Maybe 3.1 will deliver?

Re: Google Antigravity

#675

Post by bmitc »

throwaway13337 wrote: post #439

I gave it a fair shot. It is a vs code fork. There were some UI glitches. Some usability was better. Cursor has some real annoying usability issues - like their previous/next code change never going away and no way to disable it. Design of this one looks more polished and less muddy. I was working on a project and just continued with it. It was easy because they import setting from cursor. Feels like the browser wars…

Google doesn't care about products and never has. Anything they do is just creating another mouth to ingest data with.

Re: Google Antigravity

#676

Post by bmitc »

skydhash wrote: post #656
Miraste wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VS Code is technically an Electron app, but it's not the usual lazy resource hog implementation like Slack or something. A lot of work went into making it fast. I doubt you'll find many non-Electron full IDEs that are faster. Look at Visual Studio, that's using a nice native framework and it runs at the speed of fossilized molasses.

> many non-Electron full IDEs VSCode has even less features than Emacs, OOTB. Complaining about full IDEs slowness is fully irrelevant here. Full IDEs provide an end to end experience in implementing a project. Whatever you need, it's there. I think the only plugins I've installed on Jetbrains's ones is IdeaVim and I've never needed something else for XCode. It's like complaining about a factory's assembly line, sayi…

> VSCode has even less features than Emacs, OOTB.

No way that is true. In fact, it's the opposite, which is the exact reason I use VS Code.

Re: Google Antigravity

#677

Post by dragonwriter »

roadside_picnic wrote: post #511
uatec wrote: post #378

"Congratulations, you have been elevated to manager to agents." That's not exactly really where I hoped my career would lead. It's like managing junior developers, but without having nice people to work with.

I used to be really excited about "agents" when I thought people were trying to build actual agents like we've been working on in the CS field for decades now. It's clear now that "agents" in the context of "AI" is really about answering the question "How can we make users make 10x more calls to our models in a way that makes it feel like we're not just squeezing money out of them?" I've seen so many people that thin…

> but the entire point of AI was to remove the need for specialize skills and make everyone 10x more productive.

At least for programming tools, for everything (well, the vast majority, at least) that is sold that way—since long before generative AI—it actually succeeds or fails based not on whether it eliminates need for specialized skills and makes everyone more productive, but whether it further rewards specialized skills, and makes the people who devote time to learning it more productive than if they devoted the same time to learning something else.

Re: Google Antigravity

#678

Post by apsurd »

Bayaz wrote: post #671
apsurd wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

speaking of paying for LLMs, am i doing something wrong? i paid cursor $192 for a year of their entry level plan and i never run out of anything. I code professionally, albeit i'm at the stage where it's 80% product dev in finding the right thing to build. Is there another world where $200/m is needed to run hundreds of agents or something? am i behind and i dont even know it?

When did you pay for it? There was a time when its limits were very generous. If you bought an annual plan at that time then you will continue with that until renewal. Or, alternatively, you’re using the Auto model which is still apparently unlimited. That’s going away. It’s very easy to run into limits if you choose more expensive models and aren’t grandfathered.

yep just investigated and seems I got in at a good time. i paid exactly on Jan 1st 2025.

Yes, the auto model is good enough for me especially with well documented frameworks (rails, frontend madness).

Thanks for the response, looks like i'm in for a reckoning come New year's day

Post reply on HN