←back to thread

1013 points QuinnyPig | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
suralind ◴[] No.44561441[source]
Here my problem with this: I don't want to be jumping an editor/IDE every 6 months, learning new key bindings and even more importantly, getting used to a completely new look.

In a space that moves as quickly as "AI" does, it is inevitable that a better and cheaper solution will pop up at some point. We kinda already see it with Cursor and Windsurf. I guess Claude Code is all the rage now and I personally think CLI/TUI is the way to go for anyone that has a similar view.

That said, I'm sure there's a very big user base (probably bigger than terminal group) that will enjoy using this and other GUI apps.

replies(17): >>44561462 #>>44561479 #>>44561494 #>>44561503 #>>44561512 #>>44561592 #>>44561678 #>>44561889 #>>44562034 #>>44562091 #>>44563075 #>>44563576 #>>44564212 #>>44566667 #>>44569070 #>>44569580 #>>44569595 #
TimMeade ◴[] No.44561503[source]
Every 6 months? It's turning into every two weeks. Sticking with claude code. Its working beautifully for us.
replies(2): >>44561522 #>>44561949 #
MuffinFlavored ◴[] No.44561522[source]
I have a question. I do not like the concept of "agent mode" for AI. I'm a control freak and I want to control every line that gets committed because I am responsible for it and need to understand/visualize/memorize every part of codebases I work on.

Is Claude Code good for the "ask" flow? No, right?

The old flow before agent mode got added. Select some code, ask questions about it or give an instruction on editing it and then choose to accept the change.

As I understand (I could be wrong), with agent mode, it edits the file for you, no way for you to accept before it does, so you have to manually check the diff, roll back parts you don't want, etc.

Am I right?

replies(6): >>44561579 #>>44561587 #>>44561648 #>>44561661 #>>44561726 #>>44563237 #
bryanlarsen ◴[] No.44561579[source]
I like aider's solution of encapsulating each edit in a git commit; I hope that gets widely adopted.
replies(3): >>44561629 #>>44561707 #>>44565186 #
NitpickLawyer ◴[] No.44561707[source]
Unfortunately aider is showing its age. It is great for what it does, but better LLMs + "agentic" have shown that you can get more in the swe domain.

There was a paper recently where they had an LLM evolve tool harnesses and got ~20% more than w/ aider on the benchmark they used, so it's pretty clear that the models + tools (+better harness) are better than just aider.

replies(1): >>44561830 #
1. FergusArgyll ◴[] No.44561830{3}[source]
1) You can plug in any model into aider 2) It can be quite agentic

> evolve tool harnesses

Claude code & Gemini cli etc. don't do this either

replies(1): >>44561982 #
2. NitpickLawyer ◴[] No.44561982[source]
Don't get me wrong, I love aider and I've been using it since the early days. I'm just commenting on the overall "gains" and imo they are higher with the latest tools (claude code, gemini, etc).

As for 1), I agree but you force the model to work within aider's constraints. Claude4 for example excels at the agentic flow and it's better at that than providing the diffs that aider expects.

As for the last sentence, I disagree. They are evolving the stack, and more importantly they are evolving both at the same time, stack + LLM. That's the main reason they all subsidise use atm, they are gathering data to improve both. If I were to place a bet right now, I'd say that provider_tool + provider_LLM > 3rd party tool + same model in the short, medium and long term.

replies(1): >>44563580 #
3. FergusArgyll ◴[] No.44563580[source]
Oh, that's a good point, I misunderstood you to mean: The LLM writes it's own harnesses etc.