Hacker News Reader

Comment by mythz | Hacker News Reader

Full time Antigravity user here, IMO best value coding assistant by far, not even including all the other AI Pro sub perks.

Still using Claude Pro / GitHub Copilot subs for general terminal/VS Code access to Claude. I consider them all top-tier models, but I prefer the full IDE UX of Antigravity over the VS Code CC sidebar or CC terminal.

Opus 4.5 is obviously great at all things code, tho a lot of times I prefer Gemini 3 Pro (High) UI's. In the last month I've primarily used it on a Python / Vue project which it excels at, I thought I would've need to switch to Opus at some point if I wasn't happy with a particular implementation, but I haven't yet. Few times it didn't generate the right result was due to prompt misunderstanding which I was able to fix by reprompting.

I'm still using Claude/GPT 5.2 for docs as IMO they have a more sophisticated command over the English language. But for pure coding assistance, I'm a happy Antigravity user.

View on HN

Antigravity is really amazing yea, by far the best coding assistant IDE, its even superior than Cursor ngl when it comes to very complex tasks, its more methodical in its approach.

That said I still use Cursor for work and Antigravity sometimes for building toy projects, they are both good.

Speaking of methodical, have you tried AWS Kiro?

It has spec driven development, which in my testing yesterday resulted in a boat load of passing tests but zero useful code.

It first gathers requirements, which are all worded in strange language that somehow don’t capture specific outcomes OR important implementation details.

Then it builds a design file where it comes up with an overly complex architecture, based on the requirements.

Then it comes up with a lengthy set of tasks to accomplish it. It does let you opt out if optional testing, but don’t worry, it still will write a ton of tests.

You click go on each set of tasks, and wait for it to request permissions for odd things like “chmod +x index.ts”.

8 hours and 200+ credits later, you have a monstrosity of Enterprise Grade Fizzbuzz.

Honestly if you use Traycer for plan + review (I just have it open in different IDE that they support), you can use any editor that has good models and does not throttle the context window.

I am trying to test bunch of these IDEs this month, but I just cant suffer their planning and have to outsource it.

Funny enough this sounds like my experience with ex-Amazon SWEs

Do you think the SDD approach is fundamentally wrong, or that Amazon's implementation was at fault?

It sounds like the initial spec is wrong, which compounds over time.

With SDD the spec should be really well thought about and considered, direct and clear.

I think that it has two flaws:

- It is too machine like in its definition and requirements and misses the spirit of the ask.

- It very much waterfalls it, without asking for feedback midway, or revisiting the original goals after things have been built. You have such an opportunity to adjust and learn as you go, especially if you keep revisiting your goals and values and re-evaluating your original requirements which may have been flawed.

Just like with human development, it's rare that your spec is well thought out at the beginning, and impossible that it was comprehensive enough to define a working system.

I think having goals, vision, and hard requirements make sense, with some guiding principles along the way, but it's very much a journey that requires constant feedback loops and adjustments along the way.

So far I only used Antigravity for side projects and I am having so much fun. That said, I get much better results with Opus than with the Gemini models for moderately complex tasks.

Looks like codex + antigravity (which gives opus, too) for $40/mo is the sweet busy hobbyist spot… today, anyway. It could change this afternoon.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com