You wouldn't have to edit the actual repositories gitignore anyways. Every checkout of a repo comes with a .git/info/exclude file, which acts like a local additional gitignore file.

Saddly, since it relies on a Cargo.lock to be correct it also is affected by bugs that place dependencies in the Cargo.lock, but are not compiled into the binary. e.g. weak features in Cargo currently cause unused dependencies to show up in the Cargo.lock.

> despite having virtually infinite processing power, money

Just because they have the money doesn't mean that they spend it excessively. OpenAI and Anthropic are both offering coding plans that are possibly severely subsidized, as they are more concerned with growth at all cost, while Google is more concerned with profitability. Google has the bigger warchest and could just wait until the other two run out of money rather than forcing the growth on that product line in unprofitable means.

Maybe they are also running much closer to their compute limits then the other ones too and their TPUs are already saturated with API usage.

Agreed, also worth pointing out that Google still owns 14% of Anthropic + Anthropic is signing billion dollar scale deals with Google Cloud to train their models on their TPUs. So Claude success indirectly contributes to Google success. The AI race is not only about the frontier models.

> OpenAI and Anthropic are both offering coding plans that are possibly severely subsidized

So does Google, in fact I believe their antigravity limits for Opus and Sonnet for the $20 plan has higher limits than CC $20 plan, and there is no weekly cap or I couldn't get it even with heavy usage, and then you have a separate limit for Gemini cli and for other models from antigravity.

Is that so? I haven't personally used Antigravity, I just heard a lot of people complaining as recently as ~1 month ago that they hit the rate limits very quickly by e.g. it accidentally reading in too large files.

Java is for the modding user-base. If they would kill that, there is a good chance that the whole Youtube/Twitch creator ecosystem around the game dies, and with that it's popularity.

Bedrock is more performant and more portable across platforms (e.g. on consoles where you couldn't mod anyways).

Wrong kind of death. Taking mods away after a decade and a half of the game being modded inside out would massively reduce the creative scope of the game for players. It would become "boring" and die out

What can bite them in this case though is alternate providers at the same price point that can bridge the gap. e.g. you currently get a lot more bang for your buck with the $20 OpenAI Codex subscription than you get for the $20 Claude Code subscription.

> If I'm paying for usage

You are not paying for usage. You are paying for usage via their application.

If their business plan is based on how quickly a human can enter requests and react to the results, and Claude Code is optimized for that, why should you be allowed to use an alternative client that e.g. always tries to saturate the token limits?

Btw API is not for coding, it's designed for pipelines, automation, products. They just kill competition making better software like opencode.

Is that your belief to what their API should be used for?

But a) I'm not doing that and b) they can just ban that, like they have rate limits. Why ban OpenCode?

They have rate limits, but they also want to control the nozzle, and not all their users use all their allocation all the time.

In reality, heavy subscription users are subsidized by light subscription users. The rate limits aren't everything.

If agent harnesses other than Claude Code consume more tokens than average, or rather, if users of agent harnesses other than CC consume more tokens than average, well, Anthropic wouldn't be unhappy if those consumers had to pay more for their tokens.

> If agent harnesses other than Claude Code consume more tokens than average, or rather, if users of agent harnesses other than CC consume more tokens than average

Do they, though?

The speculative reasoning I've seen is that they have optimizations in their CC client that reduces their costs. If that's true, I think it's fair that they can limit subscription usage to their client. If you don't want those optimizations and prefer more freedom, use the API.

They rather have yolo permissions to run arbitrary code on your machine and phone home all the time, then opencode having it and phoning home all the time.

> anyone editing by hand would instinctively delete the extra spaces to align those

I think as a human I am significantly more likely to give up on senseless pixelpushing like this than an LLM.

And the $3 plan also has significant latency compared with their higher tier plans.

They seems to be a strong overlap of people behind both projects, so that likely explains the similarities.

I can't speak for the status quo, but for at least the first ~5 years (so until 3 years ago when I last attempted to use it), the JS implementation of Fluent was a mess. Constant issues with incomplete API, wrong TS typings (which at that point were external) and build/bundling issues to the point where we opted for a homebrew solution.

I imagine that I probably wasn't the only one driven away by that (and I gave it many attempts!).