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.
Anyway, I figured it was the only way to use gemini 3 so I got started. A fast model that doesn't look for much context. Could be a preprompt issue. But you have to prod it do stuff - no ambition and a kinda offputting atitude like 2.5.
But hey - a smarter, less context rich Cursor composer model. And that's a complement because the latest composer is a hidden gem. Gemini has potential.
So I start using it for my project and after about 20 mins - oh, no. Out of credits.
What can I do? Is there a buy a plan button? No? Just use a different model?
What's the strategy here? If I am into your IDE and your LLM, how do I actually use it? I can't pay for it and it has 20 minutes of use.
I switched back to cursor. And you know? it had gemini 3 pro. Likely a less hobbled version. Day one. Seems like a mistake in the eyes of the big evil companies but I'll take it.
Real developers want to pay real money for real useful things.
Google needs to not set themselves up for failure with every product release.
If you release a product, let those who actually want to use it have a path to do so.
They force the developing team to have a huge number of meetings and email threads that they must steer themselves to check off a ridiculously large list of "must haves" that are usually well outside their domain expertise.
The result is that any non-critical or internally contentious features get cut ruthlessly in order to make the launch date (so that the team can make sure it happens before their next performance review).
It's too hard to get the "approving" teams to work with the actual developers to iron these issues out ahead of time, so they just don't.
Buck passed, product launched.
I didn't even get to try a single Gemini 3 prompt. I was out of credits before my first had completed. I guess I've burned through the free tier in some other app but the error message gave me no clues. As far as I can tell there's no link to give Google my money in the app. Maybe they think they have enough.
After switching to gpt-oss:120b it did some things quite well, and the annotation feature in the plan doc is really nice. It has potential but I suspect it's suffering from Google's typical problem that it's only really been tested on Googlers.
EDIT: Now it's stuck in a loop repeating the last thing it output. I've seen that a lot on gpt-oss models but you'd think a Google app would detect that and stop. :D
EDIT: I should know better than to beta test a FAANG app by now. I'm going back to Codex. :D
The Documentation (https://antigravity.google/docs/plans) claims that "Our modeling suggests that a very small fraction of power users will ever hit the per-five-hour rate limit, so our hope is that this is something that you won't have to worry about, and you feel unrestrained in your usage of Antigravity."
Google may have won the browser wars with Chrome, but Microsoft seems to be winning the IDE wars with VSCode
The state of Cursor "review" features make me convinced that the cursor devs themselves are not dogfooding their own product.
It drives me crazy when hundreds of changes build up, I've already reviewed and committed everything, but I still have all these "pending changes to review".
Ideally committing a change should treat it as accepted. At the very least, there needs to be a way to globally "accept all".
I am fed up with VSCode clones, if I have to put up with Electron, at least I will use the original one.
I expect huge improvements are still to be made.
- Gemini 3 Pro (High)
- Gemini 3 Pro (Low)
- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Claude Sonnet 4.5 (Thinking)
- GPT-OSS 120B (Medium)Nothing bad with using code other people made open. Our whole industry is built on this.
Which is on top of 'Chrome'.
Interesting sandwich: Google-Microsoft-Google.
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.
- can write code
- tireless
- have no aspirations
- have no stylistic or architectural preferences
- have massive, but at the same time not well defined, body of knowledge
- have no intrinsic memories of past interactions.
- change in unexpected ways when underlying models change
- ...
Edit: Drones? Drains?
NO ONE TALKS TO EACH OTHER unless absolutely necessary for work.
We get on Zooms to talk. Even with the person 1 cubicle over.
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 think setting some "agents" of on a minutes to hours long task of basically just driving up internal KPIs at LLM providers is cutting edge work.
The problem is, I haven't seen any evidence at all that spending 10x the number of API calls on an agent results in anything closer to useful than last year when people where purely vibe coding all the time. At least then people would interactively learn about the slop they were building.
It's astounding to watch a coworker walk though through a PR with hundreds of added new files and repeatedly mention "I'm not sure if these actually work, but it does look like there's something here".
Now I'm sure I'll get some fantastic "no true Scotsman" replies about how my coworkers must not be skilled enough or how they need to follow xyz pattern, but the entire point of AI was to remove the need for specialize skills and make everyone 10x more productive.
Not to mention that the shift in focus on "agents" is also useful in detracting from clearly diminishing returns on foundation models. I just hope there are enough people that still remember how to code (and think in some cases) to rebuild when this house of cards falls apart.
Nice? I thought all sycophant LLMs were exceedingly nice.
The burden of human interaction is removed from building.
2024: every day a new Chrome fork browser is announced
2025: every day a new AI IDE vscode fork is announced
2024: every day a new electron fork is announced
2025: every day a new electron fork is announced
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.
I think this was more accurate around 2012. My local tech magazine had their own fork and they attached CD with the magazine which included the browser.
This is still happening. Didn't you see OpenAI's release of Atlas?
My crystal ball says it will be shutdown next year.
edit: Also Jules...
snark off:
I think the Google PMs should have coffee together and see if all of this sprawl makes any sense.
Remember took my a while early in my career from changing my resume away from saying "I want to do this at my next job and make a lot of money" and towards "here is how I can make money and save costs for your company".
Google didn't learn that lesson here. They are describing why us using Antigravity is good for Google, not why us using Antigravity is good for us.
The whole webpage looks like something from Apple.
> Model quota limit exceeded. You have reached the quota limit for this model.
Would be willing to bet this is the issue. Adding html files to context for gemini models results in a ton of token use.
The don't seem to be getting any rate limiting issue which I don't understand, maybe a bug in Antigravity allowing them to use it for more. They are really confident in the IDE after a few hours and the output given is really good.
It's the same problem with OpenRouter's free tiers for a long time. If something is truly $0 and widely available, people will absolutely bleed it dry.
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!
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.
:chuckles nervously:
Doesn't this apply to people who code in high level languages?
Too early in my career to not give a shit and retire, but too late be excited about these things and eager to learn. What a time...
One thing I’ve noticed though that actually coding (without the use of AI; maybe a bit of tab auto-complete) is that I’m actually way faster when working in my domain than I am when using AI tools.
Everytime I use AI tools in my domain-expertise area, I find it ends up slowing me down. Introducing subtle bugs, me having to provide insane amount of context and details (at which point it becomes way faster to do it myself)
Just code and chill man - having spent the last 6 months really trying everything (all these context engineering strategies, agents, CLAUDE.md files on every directory, et, etc). It really easy still more productive to just code yourself if you know what you’re doing.
The thing I love most though - is having discussions with an LLM about an implementation, having it write some quick unit tests and performance tests for certain base cases, having it write a quick shell script, etc. things like this, it’s Amazing and makes me really enjoy programming since I save time and can focus on doing the actual fun stuff
Ditto. And we still can.
I've yet to use an "agent", and still use a chat UI to an LLM in Emacs. I rely on these tools for design discussion, rough prototyping, and quick reference, but they still waste my time roughly a quarter of the time I use them. They have gotten better in the last year, though, and I've been able to broaden my reach into stacks and codebases I wouldn't have felt comfortable with before, which is good.
I just have no interest in "agents". I don't want to give these companies more access to my system and data, and I want to review every thing these tools generate. If this makes me slower than a vibe coder, that's intentional. Thankfully, there are still sane people and companies willing to pay me for this type of work, so I'm not worried about being displaced any time soon. Once that happens, I'll probably close up shop, figure out an alternative income stream, and continue coding as a hobby.
This just feels... a little too dystopian. Companies hoovered up the entirety more or less of all of our collective thoughts and writings and output and now want to sell it back to us- and I fear that cost is going to be extremely steep.
It's impressive, but at the same time, just feels like its going to somehow be a net detractor to society, and yet I feel I need to keep up with each new iteration or potentially get washed over and left behind by the wave.
I am somewhat fortunate to be towards the top of the pyramid and also in a position where I could theoretically ride off into the sunset, but I fear the societal implications and the pain that is going to come for vast numbers of people.
The very last thing I want is to be "elevated to a manager of agents," as they so smugly say in the video.
Ability to code within an IDE will not make shareholders happy while shoving AI down developers' throats most definitely will.
I'm going to need an AI summary of this page to even start comprehending this... It doesn't help that the scrolling makes me nauseous, just like real anti-gravity probably would.
"A more intuitive task-based approach to monitoring agent activity, presenting you with essential artifacts and verification results to build trust."
The whole thing around "trust" is really weird. Why would I as a user care about that? It's not as if LLMs are perfect oracles and the only thing between us and a brave new world is blind trust in whatever the LLM outputs.
Anthropic and OpenAI are investing a lot into this space and are now competing directly with companies like Cursor. Cursor's biggest moat at the moment is their tab completion model, which doesn't exist in the Anthropic's and OpenAI's current offerings and is leagues ahead of Github Copilot's.
Antigravity is a VSCode fork that adds both Google's own tab complete and an agent composer, similar to products like https://conductor.build/. Assuming that Google doesn't shoot themselves in the foot (which they seem to like doing), we'll see if wrappers like Cursor / Windsurf / Cognition can compete against the big labs. It's worth noting that the category seems to be blurring, since Cursor has trained not only their own tab complete model but also their own agent model.
It really seems like it's just standardizing into a first-class UI what a lot of people have already been doing.
I don't think I'm the target for this - I already use Claude Code with jj workspaces and a mostly design-doc first workflow, and I don't see why I would switch to this, but I think this could be quite useful for people who don't want to dive in so deep and combine raw tooling themselves.
Can you elaborate on how you personally use jj workspaces with command-line coding agents?
I'm not sure many engineers will welcome this "promotion".
If existing engineers don't change it doesn't matter because new engineers will take their place.
- It's VS Code
Like clockwork!
Weirdly, out of all the vscode forks the best UI is probably bytedance's TRAE
Looks like I'll wait to see if Google cares about putting the polish into a VSCode fork that at least comes close to what Cursor did.
That's 100% what it is, and rushed at that. Competition is (generally) a good thing though, only time can tell which IDE comes out on top.
Trying to understand how this is anything net new in the space.
Additionally... Google Code was shut down in 2016? I have zero confidence in such a user hostile company. They gave you a Linux phone, they extended it, and made it proprietary. They gave you a good email account, extended it and made it proprietary. They took away office software from you via Google Docs, so now you don't even own the software they do.
No thanks.
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.
It's incredible to think how many employees of this world-leading Web technology company must have visited this site before launch, yet felt nothing wrong with its basic behavior.
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.");> You can verify your code quality at a glance, then ship with absolute confidence.
Proclaiming absolute confidence after a glance leaves me with scant confident in the merit of the confidence.
> 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.
Unfortunately, once money came into the picture, quality, innovation, and anything resembling true progress flew out the window.
Work with what you love, and you will never love anything again.
- 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"
Antigravity would be a world-changing technology. This isn't.
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.
Quite shocking to see that Google would consider using this crass software and is the most inefficient software libraries ever made.
What were the engineers thinking?
I used to love leaving that site open on public PCs and watching the reactions that resulted :)
It seems to streamline my existing Claude Code workflow with a much better UI. The tab complete seems the best I've experienced and the text/image selection, adding comments and iterating on a plan is genius.
Depressing to see everyone here unable to see the forest for the trees.
very interesting times; i'm glad to see browser automation becoming more mainstream as part of the ai-assisted dev loop for testing. (disclosure: started the selenium project, now working on something similar for a vibe coding context)
Why would you not at least link it to the pro and ultra accounts
at least you could upsell the pro subs to ultra. Millions of claude code and codex users who are into agentic coding is your servicable market paying attention today.
Now I'll delete antigravity and go back to codex / claude code / cursor ...
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've been using my current IDE for 17 years, and plan to continue using it for at least another 15
Using agents effectively is this whole other skillset including managing requirements, prioritization and, worse yet, I'm rarely left with any knowledge. I don't nearly get the same joy out of "I finished a task with an agent" like I do with "I had a problem, I delved deep to understand it, learned something new and solved it"
Then again, I bet people making furniture out of wood felt the same about industrial furniture factories. And it can be argued that not every use case needs custom tailored furniture...
I remember a previous story months ago about Gemini that had Google PMs trying to hype their product, but it was all question about how nobody knows how to get Gemini API keys with any number of paid subscription.
On top of that how long until it’s https://killedbygoogle.com/ ?
What's most astonishing is that I can't seem to find what actual platforms it works for. I don't doubt the LLM's can write code in almost any language and for almost all frameworks, with varying success.
But which languages/platforms/framework will the IDE work for technically, having compilers etc built in? I don't care if an LLM can help me with the code, if I then can't compile it within the same IDE!
They have a "full stack" use case here, which doesn't even suggest what this stack consists of? https://antigravity.google/use-cases/fullstack
Am I going crazy or are they just handwaving the _actual_ development tasks in all this?
Why can I not authenticate into Google Antigravity?
Google Antigravity is currently available for non-Workspace personal Google accounts in approved geographies. Please try using an @gmail.com email address if having challenges with Workspace Google accounts (even if used for personal purposes).
Additionally, there are issues setting up accounts (Singapore VPN solved that for me), no support for Workspace users, only a free tier that requires data sharing, no additional rate limits for paying Pro or Ultra customers, etc. Even worse, Gemini CLI currently does NOT provide Gemini 3 Pro for Ultra Business customers despite paying over € 260,- per month, which is frankly ridiculous.
Will be honest, I was speculating that the reason for the multi month delay between the first A/B tests of Gemini 3 class models and the final release was so they'd have all their dugs in a row. Have some time to test everything, improve tooling, provide new paid subscriptions and/or ensure existing ones get access to everything day one, but they didn't.
Gemini 3 Pro seems very interesting (to early to say), but compared to every other recent launch by OpenAI (5, 5.1, Codex variants), Anthropic (Sonnet and Haiku 4.5), even Kimi (K2 Thinking) and Z.AI (GLM-4.6), this is by far the least organized launch of any frontier lab.
A buggy IDE which is unusable for paying customers, no CLI access for Ultra business (and none at all for Pro of any kind), etc. is frankly embarrassing when considering what competitors manage to provide the day a model launches.
What have they been working on these last two months besides going on X and posting "3" every couple of days? Why is there no paid Antigravity tier, no way to use Workspace accounts, etc? Before launching in this state, I feel it'd have been better to delay a bit more if it was absolutely needed.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this the fourth or fifth IDE built by Google for LLM assisted coding? What happened to IDX and Firebase Studio and aren't they also based on VSCode?
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...
Why does the IDE eat your files? If an editor shuts down, open up another one and continue. What's with the melodrama?
Those quota limits brought me back down to earth quickly.
There is currently no support for:
Paid tiers with guaranteed quotas and rate limits
Bring-your-own-key or bring-your-own-endpoint for additional rate limits
Organizational tiers (self-serve or via contract)
I can't really explain what the issue is, I'd assume it's about lock in, but I don't see a VS Code fork or yet another Chromium browser being something that a person couldn't easily replace with another similar fork, but with a different AI. It that the pitch internally? Lock users into a browser or IDE, so they'll be forced to use a certain AI?
> Come join us! Programming is fun again! It's a whole new world up here!
Console error:
> Loading module from “https://antigravity.google/main-74LQFSAF.js” was blocked because of a disallowed MIME type (“text/html”).
And of course I would need to look at all the implications of spying, being locked out of google account and absence of support that are google amo. No time for that. Not for them.
Anyway, not a great first impression. I guess I'll try again in a few months.
Nice that it's built-in, Claude Code needs an MCP for this at least.
> User Feedback: Intuitively integrate feedback across surfaces and artifacts to guide and refine the agent’s work.
I wish they'd just let me edit the implementation plan directly instead of me having to explain the corrections. Claude Code has the same weakness. Explaining the corrections is slower than editing the plan manually, and it still keeps the incorrect text in context as well.
> An Agent-First Experience: Manage multiple agents at the same time
Sounds nice in theory but I assume you can run multiple agents for 5 minutes or so and then you're out of credits.
As a claude code user I'm not really sold on this product.
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?
But the user experience for basic things has just been difficult. Unresponsive Agent Manager window. Agents hitting file permission errors because I don't have a proper "workspace". Agents getting blocked waiting for me to confirm a command line's "y/n".
Okay, but is it configurable? Also, can you configure it to write DRY code?
Then I installed it and it was a VSCode fork.
But for writing code in some domain I am good in, they are pretty much useless.. I would spend a lot longer struggling to get something that barely functions from them VS writing it myself, and the one I write myself will be terse and maintainable + if it has bugs they will be like obvious ones, not insane ones that a human would never do.
Even just when getting them to write individual functions with very clear and small scopes.
Pressing the "Submit" button on their "Google Antigravity for Organizations Interest Form" (https://antigravity.google/interest-form) doesn't actually do anything for me (tried Firefox and Chrome) -> their metrics will indicate that there's no interest from organizations -> the product will be killed in a year.
</snark>
If I write "float exp(float base, float exp){"
Then that is the source code and the rest is generated. Mixing it all up is as dumb as uploading a compiled binary or bytecode to git.
Especially annoying when you are working with other people and you can't tell what they actually wrote and know about.
What about a demo that shows how this can be used to fix for example https://github.com/emscripten-core/emscripten/issues/24792?
I like this tool.
edit: Scratch that, GP3L is erroring out too. Global hug I guess. I still like this.
⌘F only shows 1 result. and 0 in the comments here!!
I ran into a neat website and asked it to generate a similiar UX with Astro and it did a decent-ish job of seeing how the site handled scrolling visually and in code and replicating it in a tidy repo.
But honestly Google software seems so buggy. The management class took over there a long ago and are quietly ruining the company.
> “Google Antigravity's Editor view offers tab autocompletion, natural language code commands, and a configurable, and context-aware configurable agent.”
Is it a typo or was there a reason to add configurable twice?
I know there's a "free plan with generous rate limits" but it's obvious that they're losing money there.
Really reflects how companies are prioritizing hype and adoption over product quality.
(now off to download it...)
If Google has forgotten how to do Software, than the future doesn't look bright.
"Novel agent-first form factor" feels very buzz-wordy. Does it refer to an actual feature?
The problem is the rate limiting is both aggressive and has no option to pay to bypass.
Also call it "antigrav". Less of a mouthful
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.
It's important for people to feel like "hackers" that is the primary reason why command line sort of exploded among devs. Most devs will never admit this... they may not even realize it, but I think this is the main reason it went big.
The irony is that the very thing that makes devs feel like "hackers" is the very thing that's enabling agentic AI and making developers get all resistant because they're feeling dumber.
I assume that Copilot will have this model soon...
I have to close 4+ after just a few minutes of poking around
It’s just google’s attempt at cursor. Nothing to see here.
I really miss the days of the professional casualness and naturalness of something like the "mother of all demos" [0]. Like, can you imagine the guy wearing a turtleneck and going, "but wait!" and acting surprised after every sentence? It would NOT have been the same demo.
That seems bad.
I believe it is aimed at investors. Thus it will be forgotten the minute it stops influencing stock price.
Thus there is no need to take it literally as a developer tool - it's not.
If you manage to even get the Pylance extension to show up (I had to change the "marketplace" settings) it will say: > This extension is not compatible with Antigravity
What the heck am I supposed to do with the Jedi fall back? Legitimate question: Can Jedi even highlight unused imports? Can it import symbols not found?
If Pylance doesn't work, fork it. But the LSP needs to just work out of the box.
No thanks...
Lotta people mining science fiction for cool names and then applying them to their crappy products, cheapening the source ideas.
We are in the future, it’s just a much more rubbish version than people imagined in scifi
—No one, ever.
I'm concerned that the new role of "manager of agents" (as google puts it) will be a soul destroying brain dead work and the morale won't be good.
I guess it must have been the GPL which isn’t compatible with their AI agents.
Oh, wait I was meant to take this announcement seriously?
I'm going to treat this like Kiro, and just use it until they start charging for it and then probably switch back to VS code with its built-in agent support.
Eventually they're going to do a rug pull, and instead of paying $10 a month for tons of AI code request, it's going to be two or $300 for that. The economics just aren't there to actually make a profit, hopefully before the rug pool happens local models on normal hardware will be fast enough.
I mean, google doesn't have the greatest track record.
Also, why does that site's scroll behavior is so weird? Just use the browser's default for Ford's sake!
That's a huge advantage, it's means all the obvious stuff will just work. LSPs, debuggers, version control, customisation.
As much as I like Emacs, it's an insane pain to make all these things work.
If your value prop is agents on a codebase, there's no point in trying to reinvent those. They have basically been solved.
..."Youre absolutely right! I did mess up the internals of that feature and incorrectly reported that it works. let me try again..."
Wow was google researching some kind of anti-gravity device behind the curtains for real and then dropped it out of nowhere?
Ah damn, yet another ai-assisted-something. Crap.
Why would I even bother getting mildly invested in this when the product launch/promotion incentive structure at Google is so well known?
The people at Windsurf who worked on this must be laughing at us driving on their Lambos and Ferraris.
They glued slop together, shipped this and now are in Tahoe drinking Martinis watching the sunset from their private chalets.
I dont know what i expected tbh
opencode with it's superior feature set and ability to use any model provider i want is....
superior
why would you even bother with google at this point?
Google at its finest
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.
And now they can’t even ship a desktop app without forking VSCode? Look, I get it. There’s this huge ecosystem. Everyone uses it. I’m not saying it’s damning or even bad to fork it.
But why is this being painted as something revolutionary? It’s a reskin of all the other tools which are variations on the same theme, dressed up in business speak (an agent-first UX!). I’m sure it’s OK. I downloaded it. The default Tokyo Night theme is unusable; the contrast can’t be read. I picked Vim bindings, but as soon as I tried to edit a file I noticed that was ignored.
What happened? Is this how these beautiful, innovative companies are bound to end up?