Google's Antigravity IDE Sparks Forking Debate -- Visual Studio Magazine

News

Google's Antigravity IDE Sparks Forking Debate

Google's new AI-powered Antigravity IDE has triggered an intense discussion among developers after many users quickly concluded that the tool is based on Microsoft's Visual Studio Code.

A Hacker News thread about the launch drew more than 1,000 comments and more than 100 mentions of the word "fork," with recurring concerns about why another fork exists, what it means for the VS Code ecosystem, and how much control large vendors should have over AI-enabled development environments.

This debate continues alongside earlier reporting in Visual Studio Magazine, where the Antigravity launch was covered with an initial examination of its apparent VS Code roots (see "Google Joins AI IDE Race to Compete with VS Code, Apparently Forking VS Code").

Instant Recognition as a VS Code Fork
Multiple commenters reacted to Antigravity primarily through the lens of its relationship to VS Code. Some responses were blunt, capturing a sense of fatigue with the trend of new editors built on the same foundation. One user wrote: "Oh no. Not another VSCode fork..." Another, reacting in similar fashion, said: "Oh cool another ide for programming... aaaand its a vscode fork. I dont know what i expected tbh."

Others framed Antigravity as part of a broader pattern of AI-focused products leveraging the same editor base. One commenter summarized the pace of releases by saying: "2025: every day a new AI IDE vscode fork is announced." Another suggested that each new project in this category contributes to hype: "Each VSCode fork with some random AI junk slapped on will be a new era!"

Beyond simple recognition, some commenters linked the fork directly to Google's branding and marketing decisions. One said: "It is a vs code fork." while another objected that "It's interesting to think that Google's Antigravity is a forked version of MSFT's VS Code" and questioned how prominently that fact was acknowledged.

The Windsurf Connection
While Google's Nov. 18 announcement positioned Antigravity as a new entry in the AI IDE race alongside VS Code, community analysis has revealed deeper connections to Windsurf, another AI-powered VS Code fork that became the center of a controversial $2.4 billion deal.

Developers examining Antigravity's codebase have documented references to "Cascade," Windsurf's proprietary agentic system, suggesting that Antigravity may not simply be a VS Code fork but rather a Windsurf fork--or perhaps both, since Windsurf itself was built on the VS Code codebase.

The connection becomes clearer when examining the timeline: In July 2025, Google hired Windsurf's founding team and licensed the company's technology for approximately $2.4 billion, according to reports from Bloomberg and business sources. Cognition Labs subsequently acquired Windsurf, with the company stating that all remaining employees benefited financially from that transaction.

A 'PORK' in the Making?

The community discussion has even generated new terminology. Developers on Hacker News and social media have coined "PORK"--Proprietary Fork--to describe the practice of forking closed-source, proprietary software. If Antigravity is indeed based substantially on Windsurf's proprietary technology. The Kilo Code Blog suggests it could be "the most expensive proprietary fork in the history of tech."

The deal structure itself drew criticism from prominent venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, who wrote on social media: "Windsurf and others are really bad examples of founders leaving their teams behind and not even sharing the proceeds with their team. I definitely would not work with their founders next time." The licensing arrangement left nearly 200 Windsurf employees behind when only the co-founders and select staff joined Google.

The Transparency Question

Unlike typical open-source forks that clearly acknowledge their lineage, Google's Antigravity announcement made no mention of VS Code, Code OSS, or Windsurf. The company has not publicly confirmed whether Antigravity is a direct fork, a partial reuse of components, or an independently implemented editor.

This lack of attribution has fueled community skepticism. Hacker News commenters noted the similarities between Antigravity and both VS Code and Windsurf, with multiple developers posting side-by-side comparisons and code analysis highlighting shared components and architecture patterns.

When asked directly, the Antigravity AI assistant itself confirmed it's a VS Code fork, though the weight of that self-assessment remains unclear.

Why a Fork Instead of an Extension?
One of the most common questions in the thread was why Antigravity exists as a separate fork rather than as an extension or plugin for the existing VS Code distribution. A commenter expressed this directly: "Why is it so hard for these to be VSCode extensions and not forks?" Another asked in similar terms: "Any reason why this isn't just an extension instead of another fork?"

Several participants argued that the decision is tied to limitations in the extension model, especially around deep integration and AI features. One described Microsoft's role this way: "AIUI the forks are required because Microsoft is gatekeeping functionality used by Copilot from extensions so they can't be used by these agents." Another commenter, reflecting on why so many AI IDEs take the same route, wrote: "I was going to ask why all these companies choose to fork the entire IDE rather than just writing an extension like every other sane developer, and this response is the most believable reason why."

Others tied the fork decision to control over the environment and rules. One commenter said: "Because if they're just an extension they're stuck with whatever rules Microsoft makes up, and Google is no stranger to using this leverage against others." Another pointed out that modifying the editor itself can be necessary: "Because there are plenty of good reasons why you may want to modify/extend the code and the look and feel beyond what an extension would let you do. I never understood why people scoff at VS Code forks."

Fragmentation, Standards and Fork Fatigue
Many commenters raised concerns about fragmentation in the development tools ecosystem as more AI-enabled IDEs appear, often based on VS Code. One user, using a familiar formulation, remarked: "there are now 15 competing standards" to describe the growing number of similar but incompatible tools.

Others focused on the developer experience of dealing with multiple VS Code-derived products. One commenter asked: "How many forks of VS Code am I supposed to have installed at this point?" Another argued that the trend is approaching a breaking point: "With every AI VSCode fork we get closer to the bubble popping."

Some participants suggested that the proliferation of forks may ultimately benefit Microsoft by fragmenting alternatives. One commenter proposed that it "would be a lot wiser if all the forkers would do one 'AI-enabled' fork together" and argued that "all the fragmentation only helps MS." That view links the Antigravity debate to a larger question about whether multiple independent forks strengthen or weaken competition around the editor base.

Lock-In, Control and Product Risk
Lock-in was another recurring concern, with some commenters seeing a VS Code-based fork as a way to bind developers to a given AI ecosystem. One user described the situation as: "It is a vs code fork. With vendor lock-in to Google's AI ecosystem, likely scraping/training on all of your code (regardless of whatever their ToS/EULA says), and being blocked from using the main VS Code extensions library."

Other comments expanded this into a broader question about why so many companies are forking both browsers and IDEs. One commenter wrote: "everyone seems to believe that they need their own browser and IDE. All of them are just forks of each other, so why aren't they extensions or plugins?" and went on to ask: "Is that the pitch internally? Lock users into a browser or IDE, so they'll be forced to use a certain AI?"

Google's product history also entered the discussion, with some participants connecting the risk of adopting a new forked IDE to concerns about longevity. One commenter asked: "How long until it's killed? I mean, google doesn't have the greatest track record." Another said: "I've been burned by Google Graveyard enough that this is a hard pass from me." These remarks situate the forking debate within a longer pattern of questions about how long new Google developer tools will be supported.

Open Source Reuse, Lineage and Double Standards
Not all of the criticism in the thread focused on Google. Some commenters pointed out that VS Code itself is constructed from multiple open source components and argued that reusing code across companies is a standard practice. One wrote: "Most of VSCode (yes, most) is a mishmash of other OSS products, including Google Chromium! By that logic VSCode itself shouldn't exist." Another commented that "Electron is built on top of v8, Edge uses chromium. I think thats the beauty of opensource."

One remark summarized the layered history behind these tools: "It's interesting to think that Google's Antigravity is a forked version of MSFT's VS Code, which uses a browser engine built by Google, which they forked from Apple, which they forked from KHTML." This framing treats Antigravity as one more step in a long chain of derivative work across companies and projects.

Another commenter pushed back on the idea that using open source code is itself a problem, asking: "Reusing open-source code is a 'real, serious problem' now...?" That comment was in response to a claim that "We have a real, serious problem when even Google (presumably with a large share of the world's engineering might) is just forking VSCode." Together, those remarks highlight a divide between critics who see the fork as a missed opportunity to build something new and those who view reuse as a normal outcome of open source licensing.

Arguments in Favor of Forking VS Code
Alongside the criticism, several commenters argued that forking VS Code is a pragmatic choice for a new IDE, especially for AI-focused products. One developer with experience building IDEs wrote: "I think forking VSCode is almost always the right solutions for a new IDE. You get extensions, familiarity and most importantly, don't waste valuable time on the boring stuff which VSCode has already implemented. Nothing bad with using code other people made open. Our whole industry is built on this."

Others emphasized that starting from VS Code can reduce friction for users and make extension support available from the beginning. One commenter argued that complaints about the fork miss a key advantage: "Comments here complaining about the fact that it's vscode seem to miss the point here. That's a huge advantage, it's means all the obvious stuff will just work. LSPs, debuggers, version control, customisation." Another added that this allows new IDEs to focus on their differentiating features rather than rebuilding basic capabilities: "If your value prop is agents on a codebase, there's no point in trying to reinvent those. They have basically been solved."

Some commenters suggested that VS Code forks may actually be more trustworthy than proprietary editors without that lineage, because the shared base provides a predictable environment and compatibility with existing workflows. One wrote that they "never understood why people scoff at VS Code forks" and noted that a tool built without that base could be "missing a ton of useful capabilities and are incompatible with all the VSC extensions everyone's gotten used to."

Taken together, these arguments frame Antigravity's use of the VS Code codebase as a tradeoff: it may contribute to fragmentation and lock-in concerns, but it also allows Google to ship an AI-first IDE quickly on top of a familiar, feature-complete environment.

Forking at the Center of the Antigravity Conversation
The Antigravity launch has become a focal point for broader questions about how large technology companies should participate in open source ecosystems, how many forks a popular editor can sustain before developers feel fatigue, and whether AI-focused IDEs should exist as extensions or entirely separate products. Comments in the thread ranged from simple objections like "Another VSCode fork! This is getting ridiculous" to detailed discussions of licensing, API policies and ecosystem incentives.

While the MIT license that governs much of the VS Code codebase permits this kind of reuse, the volume and tone of the discussion around Antigravity show how sensitive developers have become to decisions about forking widely used tools. For many participants, the key issues were not just legal rights, but stewardship, ecosystem health and long-term support for the tools they rely on every day.

Whether Antigravity succeeds may depend less on its technical capabilities--which by most accounts are impressive--and more on whether developers see enough differentiation to justify leaving their current environments. The Hacker News discussion suggests that bar is getting higher as fork fatigue sets in, with one user summarizing the sentiment: "The agentic spam is exhausting. I just wanted to code."