I switch routinely between Gemini 3 (my main), Claude, GPT, and sometimes Grok. If you came up with 100 random tasks, they would all come out about equal. The issue is some are better at logical issues, some are better at creative writing, etc. If it's something creative I usually drop it in all 4 and combine the best bits of each.
(I also use Deep Think on Gemini too, and to me, on programming tasks, it's not really worth the money)
Not extensively. The few interactions I've tried on it have been disappointing though. The Voice input is really bad, like significantly worse than any other major AI in the market. And I assumed search would be its strong suit and ran a search-and-compile type prompt (that I usually run on ChatGPT) on Gemini, and it was underwhelming at it. Not as bad as Grok (which was pretty much unusable for this), but noticeably worse than ChatGPT. Maybe Gemini has other strengths that I haven't come across yet, but on that one at least, it was
Heh, not an argument against you or any point you made, today you are right. But when React first made an appearance, basically the two big selling points was 1) use same state in multiple places and 2) better performance.
Fun how with time, the core purpose of a library ever so slightly change :)
As far as I remember, in some cases yes. I remember when it initially launched, the typical demo was a list of 10K items or something, and the speaker (maybe Pete Hunt?) demonstrated the amount of time it took to add/remove items from that list, and how without the Virtual DOM, there was a lot of trashing (or something), and with the vdom, things got a lot faster.
I think this was back in 2013-2014 sometime though, so I might be misremembering, it's over a decade ago after all.
Backbone.js, Knockout.js, Ember, Dojo, Prototype, YUI all were reasonable alternatives at the time. Although all with their own warts and highlights, as is tradition.
> If you want a term to refer to "open source unless it's for AI use", then coin one
We even have such term already. It's source-available. Nothing necessarily wrong or bad about it. It only requires people to be honest with themselves and don't call code open if it's not.
Part of the background for this entire dispute is that prior to the OSI's founding, "open source" was a generic phrase which was broadly understood to just mean "the source code is available". See many documented cases in https://dieter.plaetinck.be/posts/open-source-undefined-part...
So it's a bit ironic to argue that terms cannot be redefined, when that's already what happened with "open source" and what got us here in the first place. If OSI had chosen a novel term (e.g. "Sourceware" was one option they considered), they would have been able to trademark it and avoid this entire multi-decade-long argument.
reply