Google Antigravity is an agentic development platform, evolving the IDE into the agent-first era.

Antigravity enables developers to operate at a higher, task-oriented level by managing agents across workspaces, while retaining a familiar AI IDE experience at its core. Agents operate across the editor, terminal, and browser, enabling them to autonomously plan and execute complex, end-to-end tasks elevating all aspects of software development.

via: https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/google-antigravity/about/

I have absolutely 0 idea why any developer would rely on any IDE produced by google. It'll be canned within 5 years max, with 3-4 seeming like a reasonable estimate of the lifespan of the product

I've been using my current IDE for 17 years, and plan to continue using it for at least another 15

You mean Android Studio will be canned in 2018 max with a reasonable estimate of 2016-2017?

Isn't Android Studio based on IntelliJ and not a product developed from ground up? And Android Studio has second order revenue from the playstore.

I wouldn't be even surprised if internally the AS team's financials are counted under the Playstore umbrella.

Antigravity is based on VS Code, not designed from the ground up, and has second order revenue from the AI subscriptions (financials probably counted under the AI umbrella).

I still wouldn't trust a Google product to stick around, but these hints aren't a reliable oracle either.

Which is is, vi or emacs?

Do you really think antigravity will last longer than 1 year?

See the videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX-OpeNZYI4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKQ9b4UMpGQ

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45967787

Wonder why they're unlisted.

- A new "AI" IDE announced

- It's VS Code

Like clockwork!

How many forks of VS Code am I supposed to have installed at this point?

My YC2026 startups are an AI agent that automatically manages your VSCode forks, and a public safety computer vision app for smart glasses that predicts whether someone can afford a lawyer based on their skin color

They'll have to compete with these other pending funded companies:

- ai therapist for your ai agents

- genetic ai agent container orchestration; only the best results survive so they have to fight for their virtual lives

- prompt engineering as a service

- social media post generator so you can post "what if ai fundamentally changes everything about how people interact with software" think pieces even faster

- vector db but actually json for some reason

(Edit: formatting)

This is why I have much respect for the Zed team as they are chasing originality, not just slap something onto VS Code and call it a new IDE.

I love Zed code. Sad that Sublime Text is not keeping up.

On the contrary, I am glad that the Sublime team did not fall for the trends and avoided adding AI slop into the editor

Once the UI soup around AI dev use has settled (and it's getting closer) I bet you we will see native apps with c/c++/zig/rust backends that render so much faster on all the junctions that aren't roundtrip limited (and yes, that will still matter to many people).

If both work equally well then why does it matter whether Zed or VSCode is under the hood?

I think the point is that they don’t both work equally well.

Is the extension system in VSCode not powerful enough to make these just normal extensions for a vanilla VSCode executable? Or is everyone just going for lock in, since if you download MyFork, you can't start using some other extension that uses OtherGuysModel?

Back when Cursor was new (before literally everything was AI hype) they explicitly called out that they wanted to do more in-depth integration with the editor than was possible with just the extension APIs.

Presumably that hasn't changed much. If you want to do any large-scale edits of the UI you need to spin up a fork.

VSCode

You mean Chromium wrapper?

Chromium? You mean OS wrapper?

OS? You mean HAL wrapper?

and the difference from vscode is...?

Curious if the name is a reference to https://xkcd.com/353/

Come join us! Programming is fun again! It's a whole new world up here!

I hope Google is at least acknowledging the origin of the name, even if they are not paying royalties to Randall Monroe.

I actually like the workflow they are suggesting. There's something there for sure:

- Nano Banana => Mockup

- Antigravity/IDE => Comments/note

- Gemini => Turn to code

- Antigravity/IDE => Adjust/code

All on the same platform so can maximum automate / "agentic"

So the whole world is a scam for your data now basically.

Neigh, a Trojan Horse.

Your new focus is architecting the solution, not implementing every single step. So congratulations, you have been elevated to a manager of agents.

I'm not sure many engineers will welcome this "promotion".

Few horse racers became automobile racers.

If existing engineers don't change it doesn't matter because new engineers will take their place.

Horse racing didn’t go away and there are more people who race horses professionally than who race cars.

Horses also run faster than pictures of cars

There are many more truck drivers than buggy drivers

there is a lot more buggy code than truck code

We‘ll wait and see.

Car manufacturers made profit

I don't think this is speaking to the engineers

Then who are they targeting? Who else would currently be "implementing every single step"?

Project managers and higher level management.

You weren't the target audience. The target audience was manager types tired of being told no by engineers. Always listen to the quiet parts left unspoken/unacknoeledged.

Why is google so bad at product branding and strategy? My complaint is aesthetic: why would you name your product a five-syllable word??

Its clearly a reference to the xkcd comic which does have mindshare.

Thank you for the demonstrating the reasoning that leads to these decisions.

Which comic would that be?

Later edit: Probably this one [1], which is par for the course for Alphabet, they're, conceptually, still living in the early 2010s, when this stuff was culturally relevant.

[1] https://xkcd.com/353/

Informally, people will way “antigrav”.

Because it's awkwardly close to the letters AGI, maybe

I recognize the guys in the video, they were in marketing videos for the Windsurf IDE before its founding team was cannibalized by/absorbed into Google.

It's really kind of pathetic how we live in a future where "antigravity" is a text editor that lies to you, "hoverboards" are one-wheeled electric skateboards that burn your house down, and... well, can't think of a third thing at the moment, but you know the vibe.

Lotta people mining science fiction for cool names and then applying them to their crappy products, cheapening the source ideas.

I don't get it. It's a completely blank web page. Did they not test in firefox?

Ah Google misconfigured their web server:

Loading module from “https://antigravity.google/main-74LQFSAF.js” was blocked because of a disallowed MIME type (“text/html”).

Edit: And a couple minutes later, it is now working. Guess Google is reading HN.

Honestly, the full page doesn't give you much more. Not a SINGLE product image. All paragraphs about "agentic" blah-blah you have read 100s of times by now - I do not see how this is anything different from all the other AI VS Code forks, besides that it comes with Gemini from the start.

can't get past the "Setting up your account" step atm

Haven't we got enough of new eras yet?

On the pricing page it says that for public preview they are offering a free individual plan with "generous rate limits". I gave it an HTML file and asked it to create Jinja templates from it and 2 minutes later (still planning, no additional prompt) I got this:

Model quota limit exceeded. You have reached the quota limit for this model.

html

Would be willing to bet this is the issue. Adding html files to context for gemini models results in a ton of token use.

why?

EDIT: why must users care?

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1732348/regex-match-open...

The accepted answer is one that doesn’t care about the questioner‘s use case and instead gives a pretty excessive "Don‘t do it"

It does also give the right solution, using an xml parser.

We don’t know the use case.

Maybe the questioner is also in full control of the HTML creation and they don’t need a parser for all possible HTML edge cases.

Gotta learn all the quirks of the model before it's replaced in 8 minutes.

Quirks? like context window?

I think the models are under high load right now, and not working properly.

So the error messaging is wrong, giving the user the impression it's their fault for not paying. I think that's worse..

It's both.

Free tier users get to use what's left over from Google's capacity. They pay with their data, Google uses their inputs for training.

Paid tier users pay with money, Google doesn't use their inputs. They get priority when capacity is running out (like right after a launch as happened here).

I went ahead and downloaded it, it looks to be a VSCode fork very similar to Cursor, with support for the following models:

  - Gemini 3 Pro (High)
  - Gemini 3 Pro (Low)
  - Claude Sonnet 4.5
  - Claude Sonnet 4.5 (Thinking)
  - GPT-OSS 120B (Medium)

Oh no, not another VSCode fork...

Many software engineering principles have been broken.

Google using Electron tells us that quality control is completely out of the window.

Unbelievable.

I tried writing a native Windows app using WinUI 3.

I wasted a day on trying to get some PNGs to render correctly, but no matter the config I used, the colors came out wrongly oversaturated.

I used Tauri with a WebView, and the app was rendering the images perfectly fine. On top of that the UI looked much better, and I was done in half the time I spend trying to fix the rendering issue in WinUI 3.

Never again will I go native.

To be fair WinUI3 is particularly bad. If you're forced to install a 100MB runtime anyway, might as well make that runtime be a browser.

Since Tauri uses the system's WebView, it shouldn't be that big. The docs say a minimal app could be 600 KB.

Native app dev is covered in red tape and puts you at the mercy of Apple etc. It's unfortunate that things are so inefficient now, but competition is good, and native platforms can get good.

Native app dev is covered in red tape and puts you at the mercy of Apple etc.

... Aren't we talking about a programming IDE here? When did mobile become anything like the primary market for that? Are people expected to sit around for hours inputting symbols with an OSK?

If Zed can make it, even with completely new stack, why not Google?

What are all this LLMs for when everything is just fork of electron app? Does not look like good marketing.

Looks like they managed to make it Mac only in the process.

I would love this to be true to further make fun of Electron, but I don't think it's Mac only.

https://antigravity.google/download

Thank you for saying what this entire blog post doesn't. It's actually disrespectful of Google to launch this without even a mention of the fact that it is based on VSCode.

Google is going to win AI and kill all the other market participants.

They have the revenues to support all of this.

They spent time learning from all the players and can now fast follow into every market. Now they're fast and nimble and are willing to clone other products wholesale, fork VSCode, etc.

They're developing all of this, meanwhile Pichai is calling it a "bubble" to put a chill on funding (read: competition). It's not like Google is slowing down.

We had a chance to break them up with regulation, and we didn't. Now they're going to kill every market participant.

This isn't healthy. We have an invasive species in the ecology eating up all the diverse, healthy species.

a16z and YC must hate this. It puts a cap on their returns.

As engineers, you should certainly hate this. Google does everything it can to push wages down. Layoffs, offshoring, colluding with competitors. Fewer startups mean fewer rewards for innovation capital and more accrual to the conglomerate taxing the entire internet.

Chrome, Android, Search, Ads, YouTube, Cloud, Workspace, Other Bets, and AI/Deepmind need to be split into separate companies.

Call or email your legislators and ask for antitrust enforcement: https://pluralpolicy.com/find-your-legislator/

Demand a Google breakup.

For the wage suppression thing, Google pays their engineers better than say Amazon or Microsoft.

Has Google *ever* successfully entered and taken over an existing market?

Besides search, Android kinda killed Nokia and friends for the consumer phone market.

iPhone did it, not Android.

With Nokia specifically, I would say that Windows Phone killed it.

I truly believe Nokia committed suicide. Meego-Harmattan was really good and early enough that iOS and Android weren’t completely entrenched yet.

Or perhaps it would be most correct to say Microsoft assassinated Nokia by sending in Stephen Elop as a double agent?

Search, browser, Mobile.

You mean like web search, webmail, internet ads, maps, calendars, browsers, smartphone operating systems, online document editing, and translation? I mean, I'm not even including stuff they acquired early like YouTube. Google was the most feared company for a decade or more for a good reason: they absolutely devoured competition in what were thought to be mature markets.

Do you have a source for that ? Because according to official papers submitted by Google to the court this is absolutely not the case

There are official court documents where google disowns google search? Or for what do you need a source?

Google spreadsheet was another amazing product back in the day.

Putting aside that several of these were acquisitions, these are all great examples of things where Google introduced something for free because it would make the money through advertising, both directly and through ecosystem effects. Even the paid enterprise versions of these services were a tiny % of Google's overall gross revenue.

Prior to the push into Cloud computing, Ad revenue was well over 90% of all Google gross income, and Cloud was the first big way they diversified. GCP is definitely a credible competitor these days, but it did not devour AWS. Other commercial Google services didn't even become credible competitors, e.g. Google Stadia was a technically exceptional platform that got nowhere with customers.

The question now is whether Google carves out an edge in AI that makes it profitable overall, directly or strategically. Like many companies, there seems to be a presumption of potentially infinite upside, which is what it would take to justify the astronomical costs.

Google's definitively taken over search, ads, e-mail, maps, office (for small/medium business).

They're struggling on cloud, AI, ISP, videoconferencing, and others...

There's some irony in that, given how many other companies have "created browsers" that are just Chromium forks and rubbed Google the wrong way.

The intro checklist for Antigravity includes watching VS Code tutorials!

VS Code is based on Chromium:

https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/HEAD/docs/v...

We've come full circle.

Chromium is based on Webkit which in turn is based on KHTML, so maybe KDE needs to develop a cursor clone?

Kursor.

Kursor Klone

Or, for the non-AI version, Kode

Well, Kate has been around as an KDE based advanced text editor for nearly 2 decades now - its base feature set isn't too different from a base VS Code installation. And there's also KDevelop as a more full featured IDE.

It's Windsurf

and also isn't

+1 - it also doesn't support remote ssh (the open vsx variant), so is probably only focused at local web design development vibe coding ;(

Should have just been an extension with a paid plan.

It also feels like they couldn't use the GOOGLE ANTIGRAVITY logo enough times in this blog post. Gigantic image with the logo and a subtitle, plastered over and over again.

I no longer bother reading their press releases. I'd much rather read the comments and threads like these to get the real story. And I say that as a former googler.

Why credit? Come on, the world has moved on from 1990s-era 4-clause BSD licenses. If you recall, the 4-clause BSD license states that all advertising materials must display an acknowledgement. It’s widely considered to be a mistake and nobody uses this license any more. Not because of legal reasons (incompatibility with GPL) but because it is madness to require so many acknowledgements. Stallman was right.

it is madness to require so many acknowledgements

Really? Madness? "We started with VS Code to develop our IDE...".

Oh, so onerous.

A thank you to the principle developers is a minimum if you're using someone else's work commercially and aren't an asshole.

No it's not a legal requirement, it's just about being a good part of society.

Yes, madness. VS Code wasn’t developed entirely by Microsoft. It uses plenty of other open source libraries. Why is it that VS Code should be acknowledged but not the underlying V8 engine, or Chromium, or WebKit or KHTML?

Stallman said that in 1997 there were 75 acknowledgements in a single piece of software. With today’s trend of micro libraries on npm, there will be at least thousands of acknowledgements in one piece of software.

So what?

And VSCode is based on Chromium (a fact you won't find on VS Code's website other than related to updates).

That's like saying news.ycombinator.com is based on Chromium.

VSCode runs on chromium, like any website you visit when using a Chromium browser.

To the downvoter:

VSCode -> Electron (essentially purpose specific web browser) -> Chromium

news.ycombinator.com -> General Purpose Web Browser -> Chromium

Ever heard of Firefox or Safari? I can open HN in any browser I want, but I can't change the browser used by the VSCode desktop app.

Interesting that they include non-Gemini models. Both Claude and GPT oss are both on Google Cloud, so I assume that Antigravity is using GC as the provider and not making API calls to Anthropic or OpenAI.

As somebody who worked on two IDEs which didn't fork VSCode but still used Monaco for code editing views, I think forking VSCode is almost always the right solutions for a new IDE. You get extensions, familiarity and most importantly, don't waste valuable time on the boring stuff which VSCode has already implemented.

Nothing bad with using code other people made open. Our whole industry is built on this.

Why the need to fork it instead of creating a new extension? (besides marketing)

I wonder why these forks don't build off Eclipse Theia. Is it because of the Eclipse license?

Just the Eclipse legacy and development approach perhaps. Eclipse is 24 years old and its codebase stems from VisualAge before that, so I imagine it's ... idiosyncratic. Probably the most successful thing built on OSGi, though I dont imagine Theia brought any of that along.

Eclipse Theia is based on VSCode, not the legacy Eclipse Java IDE.

Making a VSCode fork is probably the wrong direction at this point in time. The future of agentic coding should need less support for code editor related functionality, and could eventually primarily support viewing code rather than editing code. There's a lot more flexibility in UI starting from scratch, and personally I want to see a UI that allows flexible manipulation of context and code changes with multiple agents.

VSCode

Which is on top of 'Chrome'.

Interesting sandwich: Google-Microsoft-Google.

Bajillions of dollars invested in the development of some of the most powerful computational artifacts to date.

Fork VS Code, add a few workflow / management ideas on top.

"Agentic development platform"

I'm Jack's depressed lack of surprise.

Please someone, make me feel something with software again.

If you want to feel something with software, leave the industry and never look back, saving programming as something you do for your own joy/reward (I'm not being hyperbolic—I'd argue we're in the early days of the web's "dark ages").

Unfortunately, once money came into the picture, quality, innovation, and anything resembling true progress flew out the window.

So this is Google's version of Windsurf's Wave 10 before the whole team got poached? https://windsurf.com/blog/windsurf-wave-10-browser

Trying to understand how this is anything net new in the space.

Why is scrolling modified on this page? I how to disable it?

Put this in your browser console to force default scrolling

  var css = 'body { height: auto !important; overflow: auto !important; } .smooth-scroll-wrapper { transform: none !important; position: static !important; } div[style*="position: fixed"] { position: static !important; overflow: visible !important; inset: auto !important; }';
  var style = document.createElement('style');
  style.innerHTML = css;
  document.head.appendChild(style);
  console.log("Default scroll forced.");

Google likes to fuck with basic browser functionality for some reason. Scrolling, sometimes also how “click” intents through touch are triggered (that is, using js listeners for touch events instead of watching for the browser to communicate a “click” on an element; this does usability-killing shit like make a touch-to-stop-scrolling get interpreted as a click on whatever happens to be under your finger). I have no idea why they do this, but they do it a lot, so it must be a cultural thing.

And I don’t mean like some designers will highjack scroll to deliver a different experience like slide-like transitions or something (which may or may not be, differently, awful) but they’ll override it just to give you ordinary scrolling, except much worse (as on this page).

Seems like a lot of work to do just to make something shittier, but what do I know, I probably can’t implement a* on a whiteboard from memory or whatever.

Google likes to fuck with basic browser functionality for some reason.

Apple is the worst offender here. Their product pages are always sluggish.

Yeah, though with theirs I can usually see why they did it (even if I’d rather they didn’t). Google’s MO is messing with scrolling for what often appears to be no user-facing reason at all.

I can usually see why they did it

wut? scrollhijacking is bad, and doesnt matter who does it.

They want everyone to see what the webpage looks like on their Mac.

Spin up agents to tackle routine tasks that take you out of your flow, such as codebase research, bug fixes, and backlog tasks.

The software of the future, where nobody on staff knows how anything is built, no one understands why anything breaks, and cruft multiplies exponentially.

But at least we're not taken out of our flow!

After a bunch of people leave the company it's already like nobody knows how anything is built. This seems like a good thing to accelerate understanding a codebase.

it's funny - nervous funny, not haha funny - that you think drawing a real issue like this out into the open would focus an organization on solving it.

Agents pretty good at describing how a particular feature works. It's not as dire as you make it seem.

You can ask agents to identify and remove cruft. You can ask an agent why something is breaking -- to hypothesize potential causes and test them for validity. If you don't understand how something is built, you can ask the agent to give you an overview of the architecture and then dive into whatever part you want to explore more.

And it's not like any of your criticisms don't apply to human teams. They also let cruft develop, are confused by breakages, and don't understand the code because everyone on the original team has since left for another company.

Because what we need is not lazy people - we need lazy people with AI? How is this even a justification?

Sorry, where did "lazy people" come from? Nobody's talking about anybody being lazy.

you can ask the agent to give you an overview of the architecture and then dive into whatever part you want to explore more.

This is actually a cool use that's being explored more and more. I first saw it in the wiki thing from the devin people, and now google released one as well.

Humans are just better at communicating about their process. They will spend hours talking over architectural decisions, implementation issues, writing technical details in commit messages and issue notes, and in this way they not only debug their decisions but socialize knowledge of both the code and the reasons it came to be that way. Communication and collaboration are the real adaptive skills of our species. To the extent AI can aid in those, it will be useful. To the extent it goes off and does everything in a silo, it will ultimately be ignored - much like many developers who attempt this.

I do think the primary strengths of genai are more in comprehension and troubleshooting than generating code - so far. These activities play into the collaboration and communication narrative. I would not trust an AI to clean up cruft or refactor a codebase unsupervised. Even if it did an excellent job, who would really know?

Humans are just better at communicating about their process.

I wish that were true.

In my experience, most of the time they're not doing the things you talk about -- major architectural decisions don't get documented anywhere, commit messages give no "why", and the people who the knowledge got socialized to in unrecorded conversations then left the company.

If anything, LLM's seem to be far more consistent in documenting the rationales for design decisions, leaving clear comments in code and commit messages, etc. if you ask them to.

Unfortunately, humans generally are not better at communicating about their process, in my experience. Most engineers I know enjoy writing code, and hate documenting what they're doing. Git and issue-tracking have helped somewhat, but it's still very often about the "what" and not the "why this way".

"major architectural decisions don't get documented anywhere" "commit messages give no "why""

This is so far outside of common industry practices that I don't think your sentiment generalizes. Or perhaps your expectation of what should go in a single commit message is different from the rest of us...

LLMs, especially those with reasoning chains, are notoriously bad at explaining their thought process. This isn't vibes, it is empiricism: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.04388

If you are genuinely working somewhere where the people around you are worse than LLMs at explaining and documenting their thought process, I would looking elsewhere. Can't imagine that is good for one's own development (or sanity).

I've worked everywhere from small startups to megacorps. The megacorps certainly do better with things like initial design documents that startups often skip entirely, but even then they're often largely out-of-date because nobody updates them. I can guarantee you that I am talking about common industry practices in consumer-facing apps.

I'm not really interested in what some academic paper has to say -- I use LLM's daily and see first-hand the quality of the documentation and explanations they produce.

I don't think there's any question that, as a general rule, LLM's do a much better job documenting what they're doing, and making it easy for people to read their code, with copious comments explaining what the code is doing and why. Engineers, on the other hand, have lots of competing priorities -- even when they want to document more, the thing needs to be shipped yesterday.

Alright, I'm glad to hear you've had a successful and rich professional career. We definitely agree that engineers generally fail to document when they have competing priorities, and that LLMs can be of use to help offload some of that work successfully.

Your initial comment made it sound like you were commenting on a genuine apples-for-apples comparisons between humans and LLMs, in a controlled setting. That's the place for empiricism, and I think dismissing studies examining such situations is a mistake.

A good warning flag for why that is a mistake is the recent article that showed engineers estimated LLMs sped them up by like 24%, but when measured they were actually slower by 17%. One should always examine whether or not the specifics of the study really applies to them--there is no "end all be all" in empiricism--but when in doubt the scientific method is our primary tool for determining what is actually going on.

But we can just vibe it lol. Fwiw, the parent comment's claims line up more with my experience than yours. Leave an agent running for "hours" (as specified in the comment) coming up with architectural choices, ask it to document all of it, and then come back and see it is a massive mess. I have yet to have a colleague do that, without reaching out and saying "help I'm out of my depth".

The paper and example you talk about seem to be about agent or plan mode (in LLM IDEs like Cursor, as those modes are called) while I and the parent are talking about ask mode, which is where the confusion seems to lie. Asking the LLM about the overall structure of an existing codebase works very well.

Idealized industry practices that people wish to follow, but when it comes to meeting deadlines, I too have seen people eschew these practices for getting things out the door. It's a human problem, not one specific to any company.

The software of the future, where nobody on staff knows how anything is built

Doesn't this apply to people who code in high level languages?

If I use this does it mean Google has access to all my code and it may popup as"AI generated" in someone else's code?

That's not quite how LLMs work.

Generally if you are paying full price (paying per token), then it's not used for training.

If you are not paying, or paying a consumer level price ($20/mo) you will be trained on.

ETA: In the terms they say they use your data because "free" is the only option available in preview. However it does say you can disable sharing in your settings...

Read the title, got excited. Read the page.. ah well, guess we'll have to wait another while for FTL travel.

I don't want to hate on this but I remember last week, when as a backend developer doing frontend, I spent about 20 minutes prompting Claude Sonnet in a loop trying to build a landing page for a new feature.

The task was to put create a header, putting the company logo in the corner and the text in the middle.

The resulting CSS was an abomination - I threw it all away and rewrote it from scratch (using my somewhat anemic CSS knowledge), ending up with like 3 selectors with like 20 lines of styles in total.

This made me think that 1: CSS and the way we do UI sucks, I still don't get why don't we have a graphical editor that can at least do the simple stuff well. 2: when these model's don't wanna do what you want them to the way you want them, they really don't wanna.

I think AI has shown us there's a need for a new generation of simple to write software and libraries, where translating your intent into actual code is much simpler and the tools actually help you work instead of barely allowing to fight be all the accidental complexity.

We were much closer to this reality back in the 90s when you opened up a drag and drop UI editor (like VB6, Borland Delphi, Flash), wrote some glue code and out came an .exe that you could just give to people.

Somewhere along the way, the cool kids came up with the idea that GUIs are bad, and everything needs to go through the command line.

Nowadays I need a shell script that configures my typescript CDK template (with its own NPM repo), that deploys the backend infra (which is bundled via node), the database schema, compiles the frontend, and puts the code into the right places, and hope to god that I don't run into all sorts of weird security errors because I didn't configure the security the way the browser/AWS/security middleware wanted to.

Product leaders that apply world-changing technology breakthrough names to their yet-another cloned SaaS product deserve more shame.

Antigravity would be a world-changing technology. This isn't.

Why? There's nothing wrong with metaphor.

And agentic coding is about working at a much higher conceptual level. Further from the ground. Antigravity is a functional metaphor.

My only issue with it is that it's too long at five syllables, and "anti-" is an inherently negative connotation. I'm guessing this will eventually get renamed if it gets popular, much like Bard was.

They should not be too metaphorical when naming a clone, tho.

As the parent said, actual anti-gravity is world-changing technology. It's telling the very laws of nature to go fuck themselves, you're gonna do what you want, even if all of known physics says it's impossible.

Working at a higher conceptual level is just project management. You're the legislator giving out unfunded mandates rather than the agency staff that has to figure out how to comply. There's power there, but it isn't anti-gravity.

That said, I suspect this is really meant to allude to https://xkcd.com/353/.

There's power there, but it isn't anti-gravity.

That's why it's metaphor. "Operation Warp Speed" also delivered vaccines quickly, but not faster than the speed of light.

The list of company and product names that are based on a metaphor that is very obviously exaggerated is endless. Google doesn't index a googol number of pages either.

I feel it's a bit ignorant of you to double down on your argument and compare a cloned product release by some macbook swinging google engineers with vaccination, which actually positively impacted many human lives.

Are you for real? When someone disagrees, it's not "ignorance" or "doubling down". It's just legitimate disagreement. There's nothing I'm ignorant of here, so please don't throw around insults like that.

I just continue to stand by the fact that naming products using exaggerated metaphor is standard practice. The idea that it is "shameful" or "ignorant" seems absurd. I think it's OK not to take it too seriously. Nobody is going to be confused and walk off of a cliff or something because the product is named "antigravity"...

Do you get upset that the Milky Way candy bar doesn't actually contain a galaxy within? Or that the Chicago Bulls aren't as strong as actual bulls?

so your point is that you are policing what people think is shameful or ignorant? Is it too much to not think too high of a VSCode fork?

Geez, people are still this impressed by big tech?

Since when did disagreeing become policing? But yes, if someone calls me ignorant without any justification, I'm going to disagree. And if you think that's "policing", I'm sorry but you seem to be the ignorant one here around the meaning of that word.

"Geez," it's just a name. Is it too much to not get worked up over a perfectly innocent and fun name?

Anyone else stuck on 'setting up your account'?

My guess is it fails if you use a workspace account. I was able to use it with my personal Google account.

I'm not using a workspace account and am unable to get past this step.

What the hell is going on with scrolling on their website?

Am I the only one stuck in the "Setting Up Your Account" loading screen?

2020: every day a new JS framework is announced

2024: every day a new Chrome fork browser is announced

2025: every day a new AI IDE vscode fork is announced

vscode fork

I wonder why they are not trying to fixup something based on their own GUI stacks like Flutter or Compose Multiplatform.

It seems only Zed is truly innovating in this space.

Well it's a helluva lot faster to make for one. For two, just about everyone knows how to navigate in vscode by now. Reducing the barrier of entry has obvious advantages.

I have Cursor at work. The only element of the interface I'm using (and know how to use) is the chat window.

IMO, it's an absolutely crappy IDE, crappy editor, with absolutely incomprehensible hostile UI.

I have almost two decades of experience with Vim, Emacs and IntelliJ. FWIW, I was able to easily find my ways in helix, kakoune and Zed.

Really? Can you say what you hate it about it pls

From the top of my head in no specific order

- Icons on the toolbar in the left panel have no labels or even tooltips. No way to know what they do without clicking and checking.

- Space in the file explorer in the left panel opens a file (haven't noticed such behavior in other editors -- totally unexpected).

- Maybe that's the artifact of me installing Vim plugin, but Keyboard shortcuts displayed in the main menu don't do what they say they do.

- It often offers installing some plugins, and I've absolutely no idea why, and what will happen if I do or if I don't.

I'm talking about Cursor, which I assume is exactly like VS Code. Tried VS Code only once very long ago.