Mond_

Are you sure you're up to date?

The async design changed multiple times, and the current approach is that of requiring passing an I/O interface that encapsulates the logic, same approach as for passing around an allocator.

This effectively makes all I/O bound code "quasi-async", and it's all explicit and the caller is in control.

anyone remember when Google Cloud's AI product was called Duet AI?

no?

just me?

ok

Google has both. Afaik we don't know whether OpenAI models will run on TPUs or GPUs here.

Cpp2 has been dead for a while afaik, while Carbon is still going.

I don't think Carbon is dead, it just all depends on how easy it actually is to rewrite "all of C++" in Rust. (The jury is still out on this one, but it's not looking good.)

Yeah, sure, but you don't need a dedicated plan mode for that at all. you can just do it in auto mode, and say "let's do some planning first", and Claude will (nowadays) be smart enough to understand that it's not supposed to jump straight into the implementation.

So again: You don't need plan mode, auto mode works just fine, there is no difference in the workflows here.

I agree on both accounts fwiw.

My understanding is that this one was never really "official", and that the guy who released it wasn't following standard procedures. That's not even the official Google github account.

Fair enough, I missed that specific line. The point still stands that I wouldn't expect this to have GDM leadership backing. (If you're planning to use this at all, that matters for how much faith you should have in the product.)

Yes, and one thing to understand about Google is that no AI framework or tool is guaranteed to survive unless it has the explicit backing of Google Deepmind.

"Effort in GCP" is a red flag. (See Gemini CLI, which was shut down in favor of Antigravity CLI.)

The reality with releases like this is that I'm 90% sure most Google bigwigs have never heard of it, and it's misleading to label it as "Google's" in the title.

Yes, it was developed by Google employees, that does not imply it has the full backing of Google, or Deepmind, or GCP. Notably, the website doesn't seem to claim this either.

> Hacker News Guidelines

> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

Where did you hear that it got pushed back out? It's going strong as far as I can tell.

Tao is so incredibly ahead of the curve in this regard that you trying to accuse him of not "going with the program" is a bit silly.

He's not an AI Luddite by any means.