81–90 of 186 posts
Aren't there a ton of products already doing this? Why not just use claude Cowork? Surely they're simpler/better/more featureful/developed than the alternatives here? What advantage does this have? Would love to see a 'QM vs Cowork' comparison!
this one is trying to cashin on the 'multiplayer' keyword after the buzz that 'no one has cracked multiplayer yet'. well the ui sucks and is not it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is that they just want your prompts, not your code.
yes, specifically they want purely human-written ones. i understand why they want their own agent to do the code, and i can see the reasoning behind it. but not allowing ai to format/tidy up/flesh out the proposal is the part that i thought was a little funny.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is fascinating and I love to see it. Ultimately though, why not build your own? I think that in part is what we're beginning to see-- highly customized and personalized software. I take most of these as inspiration these days and just build my own. Nothing you can't hammer out with a few good Claude sessions.
But why build your own from scratch when you can do it on top one extensible UI platform that already has all of your organizational context, not to mention coding agents already built-in that you can just tell it to build & deploy your personalized workflow softwaree from scratch? ;-)
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack
Use Garry Tan's exact Claude Code setup: 23 opinionated tools that serve as CEO, Designer, Eng Manager, Release Manager, Doc Engineer, and QA
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is fascinating and I love to see it. Ultimately though, why not build your own? I think that in part is what we're beginning to see-- highly customized and personalized software. I take most of these as inspiration these days and just build my own. Nothing you can't hammer out with a few good Claude sessions.
These new experiences are built atop layers and layers of bedrock libraries that we, generally, don't reinvent. Or we reinvent one or two. What's notable to me is that ux doesn't so far generally have this behavior. That as per this post people just build a new app, a new experience. I want to believe over time we'll have better composable & malleable ux experiences atop broader platforms for us. That over time the "…
The agents are so good at this, there's literally no point in not doing it that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI needs entirely new primitives in many areas.
I think we need a new area of study around UI/Agent connection. It can kinda be done with tools, but I'd we need much deeper primitives to allow the UI to inform the Agent and vice-versa. Right now we've just given up, replacing the UI with an Agent message view, but I think that's just because nobody is thinking about how the two can compliment each other I've been playing around with using a hidden markov model inf…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is fascinating and I love to see it. Ultimately though, why not build your own? I think that in part is what we're beginning to see-- highly customized and personalized software. I take most of these as inspiration these days and just build my own. Nothing you can't hammer out with a few good Claude sessions.
These new experiences are built atop layers and layers of bedrock libraries that we, generally, don't reinvent. Or we reinvent one or two. What's notable to me is that ux doesn't so far generally have this behavior. That as per this post people just build a new app, a new experience. I want to believe over time we'll have better composable & malleable ux experiences atop broader platforms for us. That over time the "…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, if they're consistent, the ADR directory contains only human written text that drives the underlying development... Aaand it's empty. Well. I personally would probably have the readme generated based on that directory as the primary document, probably with another `readme_generation_rules.md` in the ADRs directory, and I would be pretty ruthless about disallowing all the slop-adjacent wording.
> I would be pretty ruthless about disallowing all the slop-adjacent wording. I’d think that trying to play whack-a-mole with slop like that would result in a lengthy prompt, as well as being brittle to future changes. If you want the prompt to be the source of truth, you’re probably going to have to accept prose that feels like AI, at least until you can regenerate with some future smarter model.
It will, of course, be slightly worse at the non-style task (i.e. make the readme worse), but if you care about the style, that's probably an acceptable tradeoff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is fascinating and I love to see it. Ultimately though, why not build your own? I think that in part is what we're beginning to see-- highly customized and personalized software. I take most of these as inspiration these days and just build my own. Nothing you can't hammer out with a few good Claude sessions.
These new experiences are built atop layers and layers of bedrock libraries that we, generally, don't reinvent. Or we reinvent one or two. What's notable to me is that ux doesn't so far generally have this behavior. That as per this post people just build a new app, a new experience. I want to believe over time we'll have better composable & malleable ux experiences atop broader platforms for us. That over time the "…
Right now shadcn/ui might be the leading candidate but there are plenty including old school bootstrap, material / MUI, a bunch of various flat-themed ui, etc. They often come in the form of a react component library or whatever but they're generally really solid. I also found one in svelte that I can't immediately pull up but it was nice looking too.