41–50 of 240 posts
What I miss from all of these (EDIT: I see opencode has this for github) is the lack of being able to authenticate with the monthly paid services; github copilot, claude code, openai codex, cursor etc etc
That would be the best addition; I have these subscriptions and might not like their interfaces, so it would be nice to be able to switch.
I don't get why terminal agents are so popular of late. Having spent more than a decade in terminal based development (vi*), and now fully moved over to a real IDE (vs code), it seems bonkers to me. The IDE is so much more... integrated
At this point, TUI's still feel like the most streamlined interface for coding agents. They're inherently lighter weight, and generally more true to the context of dev environments.
I'm also not sure whether Gemini CLI is actually better aligned with the context of development environments.
Anyway—slightly off-topic here:
I’m using Gemini CLI in exactly the same way I use VS Code: I type to it. I’ve worked with a lot of agents across different projects—Gemini CLI, Copilot in all its LLM forms, VS Code, Aider, Cursor, Claude in the browser, and so on. Even Copilot Studio and PowerAutomate—which, by the way, is a total dumpster fire.
From simple code completions to complex tasks, using long pre-prompts or one-shot instructions—the difference in interaction and quality between all these tools is minimal. I wouldn’t even call it a meaningful difference. More like a slight hiccup in overall consistency.
What all of these tools still lack, here in year three of the hype: meaningful improvements in coding endurance or quality. None of them truly stand out—at least not yet.
The big question - which one of these new agents can consume local models to a reasonable degree? I would like to ditch the dependency on external APIs - willing to trade some performance in lieu.
Most of these agents work with any OpenAI compatible endpoints.
I spent at least an hour trying to get OpenCode to use a local model and then found a graveyard of PRs begging for Ollama support or even the ability to simply add an OpenAI endpoint in the GUI. I guess the maintainers simply don't care. Tried adding it to the backend config and it kept overwriting/deleting my config. Got frustrated and deleted it. Sorry but not sorry, I shouldn't need another cloud subscription to use your app.
Claude code you can sort of get to work with a bunch of hacks, but it involves setting up a proxy and also isn't supported natively and the tool calling is somewhat messed up.
Warp seemed promising, until I found out the founders would rather alienate their core demographic despite ~900 votes on the GH issue to allow local models https://github.com/warpdotdev/Warp/issues/4339. So I deleted their crappy app, even Cursor provides some basic support for an OpenAI endpoint.
I don't get why terminal agents are so popular of late. Having spent more than a decade in terminal based development (vi*), and now fully moved over to a real IDE (vs code), it seems bonkers to me. The IDE is so much more... integrated
It seems like you might have missed the gap between vi and modern terminal based development. Neovim with plugins is absolutely amazing and integrated, there are even options like Lazyvim that do all the work for you. I took the opposite journey and went from IDE to Neovim and I'm glad I did. vs code is a bunch of stuff badly cobbled together in a web app, running in Electron. It's a resource hog and it gets quite sl…
No, I used neovim and spent way too much time trying to turn it into an IDE, even with the prepackaged setups out there
VS Code is sitting below 5% CPU and 1G of memory, not seeing the resource hog you are talking about. LSPs typically use more resources (which is outside and the same for both)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because integrating directly with very large varities of editors & environments is actually kind of hard? Everyone has their own favorite development environment, and by pulling the LLM agents into a separate area (i.e. a terminal app) then you can quickly get to "works in all environments". Additionally, this also implies "works with no dev environment at all". For example, vibe coding a simple HTML only webpage. Al…
All of the IDEs already have the AI integrations, so there's no work to do. It's not like you don't have to do the equivalent work for a TUI as an IDE for integration of a new model, it's the same config for that task. > works with no dev environment at all The terminal is a dev environment, my IDE has it built in. Copilot can read both the terminal and the files in my project, it even opens them and shows me the dif…
I don't get why terminal agents are so popular of late. Having spent more than a decade in terminal based development (vi*), and now fully moved over to a real IDE (vs code), it seems bonkers to me. The IDE is so much more... integrated
For me, a terminal environment means I can use any tool or tech, without it being compatible with the IDE. Editors, utilities, and runtimes can be chosen, and I'm responsible for ensuring they can interop.
IDEs being convenience by integrating all of that, so the choice is up to the user: A convenient self contained environment, vs a more custom self assembled one.
Choose your own adventure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point, TUI's still feel like the most streamlined interface for coding agents. They're inherently lighter weight, and generally more true to the context of dev environments.
"Feels like" is a subjective measure. For example, Gemini CLI does feel inherently lighter than something like VS Code. But why should it? It's just a chat interface with a different skin. I'm also not sure whether Gemini CLI is actually better aligned with the context of development environments. Anyway—slightly off-topic here: I’m using Gemini CLI in exactly the same way I use VS Code: I type to it. I’ve worked wit…
I don't think any will every truly stand out from the others. Seems more like convergence than anything else
I would love a comparison between all these new tools, like this with Claude Code, opencode, aider and cortex. I just can’t get an easy overview of how each tool works and is different
Even aside from the expense (which penalizes universities and smaller labs), I feel it's a bad idea to require academic research to compare itself to opaque commercial offerings. We have very little detail on what's really happening when OpenAI for example does inference. And their technology stack and model can change at any time, and users won't know unless they carefully re-benchmark ($$$) every time you use the model. I feel that academic journals should discourage comparisons to commercial models, unless we have very precise information about the architecture, engineering stack, and training data they use.
sucks that i can't use any of these because claude code has me in golden handcuffs. I don't care about the cli but for a hobbyist i can't afford to call llm apis directly.
> opencode kinda cheats by using Antropic client ID and pretending to be Claude Code, so it can use your existing subscription. [1]
I'd definitely like to see Anthropic provide a better way for the user's choice of clients to take advantage of the subscription. The way things stand today, I feel like I'm left with no choice but to stick to Claude Code for sonnet models and try out cool tools like this one with local models.
Now, with all that said, I did recently have Claude code me up a POC where I used Playwright to automate the Claude desktop app, with the idea being that you could put an API in front of it and take advantage of subscription pricing. I didn't continue messing with it once the concept was proved, but I guess if you really wanted to you could probably hack something together (though I imagine you'd be giving up a lot by ramming interactions through Claude Desktop in this manner). [2]