I use it for golang, and it is fantastic. Incredibly fast. It seems the llm and I “understand” each other. I have to be less careful in my exact phrasing. It kind of just does what I want and expect.
When I ask for an explanation it adds the right amount of detail. Of course, some of the material is new to me so subtle errors are hard to spot. But at least I’ve caught Terra and Sol on inconsistent messaging.
Also I’ve found 3.8 flash to circle back to root issues even at the conceptual level like problem fit and conceptual solution direction or architecture when I wasn’t achieving my goals. It flat out said I was attempting to use the wrong tool. Whereas Sol and Astra kept rabbit holing and looking for tiny implementation errors. Even after prompting them specifically to look at it broader.
If you don’t have a plan yet, log in to antigravity. There will be a button “upgrade plan” somewhere. Sometimes it pops up and otherwise lookup in settings > account. There should be some button that says upgrade. Clicking that brought me to the google studio ai page which offered the 20-something plan for €5/month.
IIRC in Linux you can run the windows version of office via wine or one of the successor/forks. Not sure if AD integration works nicely. And maybe it is just a group policy that somehow blocks it. But running the software should be possible these days.
This is the billion dollar question for corps though. Windows and MacOS are first class citizens of the corporate IT universe and all the weirdness of corporate IT works. MDM, identity/auth, Office, LOB apps, video, document signing, data labeling, everything.
Linux has taken huge, heroic strides, and has caught up to about 2005. Corporate IT simply will not sanction Linux desktops unless they are provably as well versed in the entire ecosystem as Win/Mac, barring a "political" decision made at the top to make it happen.
To change this would require a profoundly deep, expensive, and continuing investment in all aspects of the 'Modern Work' experience, plus genuine commitment from Microsoft to make it happen (which would likely require lawsuits and enforcement).
The situation today is that a few orgs are playing catchup on some features, but that will never be enough to match a platform that has been dedicated to corporate life for 40+ years, and from a company infamous for extending their advantages to extinguish the competition.
AFAIK, Wine/equivalent only works for older versions (up to 2016?) - newer versions +/- AD require a VM of some variety. (This was originally where I noped out and switched to MacOS instead.)
I’m a Mac dude through and through but its shortcuts don’t hold a candle to windows alt shortcuts. In windows, alt shortcuts are progressively revealed to the user and the entire UI is operable without having to memorize a series of hand cramping shortcuts.
Refactoring when you know the shortcuts and what you want to do is still significantly faster and less error prone than letting an llm do it. That is why I started semedit[0], to bring semantically editing to LLMs. I’m still working on the benchmarking harness but the first results where I get the llm to actually use the tools look promising.
Back in the good old days we would prevent these ux/ui issues by rigorously enforcing the use of our own stylesheets and classes. Later that grew to only using the company ux components. This was very successful in keeping everything neat and tidy. The only drawback was creating and curating new elements and getting consensus. But otherwise it works wonders.
Try constructing reusable components out of what you are doing instead of building everything up from basic building blocks. This also allows more concrete testing of individual parts and then if you want to change the look you can change it in one place and have it apply everywhere.
Agentic development doesn’t mean “throw all what we learned out of the window”, the same practices that helped speed up and improve quality of work of humans also helps agents. In fact, the multiplier is even bigger. You will notice it in development speed and reduced cost due to avoiding churn.
I use reusable components but the issue is that the model rarely checks to see if a component already exists. Or it will use the wrong one. Or if the component strays from the reusable component it doesn't extend it in a generalized way and will special case inline styles, or it'll create a new component. Rarely does it intelligently figure out the correct course of action.
I've also built up a suite of linter rules to catch the same mistakes the model makes over and over. Still, there are a lot of gaps. I think it's mostly because my codebase is massive at this point. It was easy when the codebase was small and didn't require context gathering to make good decisions.
If you have reusable components it should be quite easy for you to add it yourself. Its okay to code by hand, especially when doing frontend.
When comes to frontend work, the handmade UX designed by a professional will always outperform whats made by an llm.
Sure its 10x slower, but you'll get 20x more usere because it will obvious it was made with care (if done well, and you should learn to do it well). Its the same reason handmade clothing, watches and other luxery items speak to us more, sometimes its marketing but often times its the craft.
There's a reason why all the companies selling the idea that web dev is dead, like lovable, still hire designers with 50k retainers to do their landing pages.
I think this is a good example of "AI tools are not as good as users think they are". If you're having problems with AI tools not checking to see if a component already exists, then they're not ready for prime-time on your codebase. The solution isn't to stop caring whether or not you're using reusable components, the solution is just to acknowledge (regretfully!) that AI coding is not good enough to meet an appropriate quality standard without more supervision than you've been able to use it with in the past.
Start by adding more descriptions to the help and documentation docs of the components. Create an index. Forbid the llm to use any other component than on that list. Let another llm review the work. Forbid it to make custom html.
Then every time it tries to do so ask it why it didn’t use one of the ones from the list. Update the list with more ifthenusethis texts. Also negatives, if such then use y instead.
Or more of an opportunity cost. You are able to get to 100% performance with dedicated attention from skilled engineers. But otherwise normal gods just manage to get a bare 60% out, versus the 80% they would get in rust. (Numbers are fictional.)
I’ve seen many open source contributors deflated because they wanted to share their code/solutions with other individuals and the world to learn from only to have their work sold as a service by a big cloud vendor without seeing something back for it. Or maybe even getting more work back to support the cloud vendor for free.
So I’m not surprised at all that licenses that allow commercial use up to a point and above that require seperate license or contributions back. It is still open source in a lot of ways. Can still be part of other open source distributions that themselves make no profit etc. And only companies that are more than able to pay must pay something.
It's a good idea if it actually works. Are enough commercial users paying up so that these projects get some serious funding?
If companies avoid using software governed by such licenses then the overall impact is negative in my opinion, because it will lead to competing and diverging clean room clones that just split the community and the ecosystem.
I put my ssh credential behind a tpm and now I notice that every time I switch a chat in ChatGPT it tries to see the current remote status of the branch.
That also doesn’t help with load. So besides what agents are doing themselves the AI companies also have a responsibility of being good citizens.
Quite good as work horses? To me Luna is the work horse and Sol and Astra are prancing thoroughbreds. If I use Sol or Astra for anything other than curated reasoning and planning I will burn through my usage limits in an hour.
Same. I use Luna for research/scout/test subagents, Sol for coordinator, Terra for delegate, and Astra high for review and simplify. Even with Astra in there, it’s fresh context, and I’m consistently amazed by how far I can stretch my $20 subscription with really good results.
Why do you use Sol for the coordinator? Does it also do planning and design? Because otherwise you are cranking Sol turns on very mundane orchestration jobs.
So. Just like there are a gazillion book keeping tools/saas out that allow you to focus on your primary concern of the business instead of side quests and chores, agents can help with more.
Generating reports, generating ideas, taking things through (even if it is just rubber ducking), updating a picture quickly at 90% of quality that you could have done it but in 1% of time and effort. It allows you to try out new approaches and focus on your main product.
When I ask for an explanation it adds the right amount of detail. Of course, some of the material is new to me so subtle errors are hard to spot. But at least I’ve caught Terra and Sol on inconsistent messaging.
Also I’ve found 3.8 flash to circle back to root issues even at the conceptual level like problem fit and conceptual solution direction or architecture when I wasn’t achieving my goals. It flat out said I was attempting to use the wrong tool. Whereas Sol and Astra kept rabbit holing and looking for tiny implementation errors. Even after prompting them specifically to look at it broader.
reply