Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kite is saying farewell and open-sourcing its code

kite.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 547 posts

Re: Kite is saying farewell and open-sourcing its code

#241

Post by telotortium »

Gigachad wrote: post #217
jacurtis wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [we] use copilot basically a line or three at a time as a smart autocomplete. I think this is the best way to think of CoPilot. GitHub is selling it like its going to write all your code for you, but in reality it is just next-generation auto-complete. That's not a bad thing. In some ways I'd argue its actually better. GitHub needs to change its marketing because even most developers seem to think that its out ther…

I found copilot to be less useful than autocomplete. Typical autocomplete suggests things that actually exist and work in the codebase. While Copilot would suggest things that look superficially like names that exist or ways I might have named it, but very often just wrong. I find typed languages like Rust or Typescript make VS Code super powered and provides much more value than copilot.

Not surprisingly (Google's internal code analysis tooling is quite sophisticated), Google has added a post-processing filter to remove results that don't compile, but that's not publicly available: https://ai.googleblog.com/2022/07/ml-enhanced-code-completio...

Re: Kite is saying farewell and open-sourcing its code

#243

Post by quickthrower2 »

jrpt wrote: post #18

"Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools. Their manager might, but engineering managers only want to pay for discrete new capabilities, i.e. making their developers 18% faster when writing code did not resonate strongly enough." I never used Kite, but I've tried Github Copilot twice, and found it marginal at best (and distracting at worst - which is why I turned it off both times). If Kite wa…

I can see Jetbrains as being the conduit for selling such a tool, because their customers are willing and are to some extent trained to pay.

Re: Kite is saying farewell and open-sourcing its code

#244

Post by importantbrian »

jrpt wrote: post #18

"Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools. Their manager might, but engineering managers only want to pay for discrete new capabilities, i.e. making their developers 18% faster when writing code did not resonate strongly enough." I never used Kite, but I've tried Github Copilot twice, and found it marginal at best (and distracting at worst - which is why I turned it off both times). If Kite wa…

I tried Kite and didn't even keep using the free trial or whatever the free tier was at the time. I don't think the issue is that developers won't pay for tools. Companies like Jetbrains are incredibly successful selling tools to developers. The issue for Kite is that Kite wasn't worth paying for.

Re: Kite is saying farewell and open-sourcing its code

#245

Post by meowmeowmoo »

lijogdfljk wrote: post #178
jrpt wrote: post #18

"Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools. Their manager might, but engineering managers only want to pay for discrete new capabilities, i.e. making their developers 18% faster when writing code did not resonate strongly enough." I never used Kite, but I've tried Github Copilot twice, and found it marginal at best (and distracting at worst - which is why I turned it off both times). If Kite wa…

Yea.. i happily pay for several JetBrains tools and i'd love to pay for even more. I've got several problems that i don't want to spend time solving myself. Frankly as a developer i've got more problems than i can count and if it involves a GUI i tend to prefer to pay for it. I love FOSS but UX is just not often a focus. I have better experience with paid products. Assuming the licensing isn't punishing.

What problems would you pay to have solved for you that don’t already have a solution?

Re: Kite is saying farewell and open-sourcing its code

#246

Post by quickthrower2 »

> Then we grew our user base. We executed very well here, and grew our user base to 500,000 monthly-active developers, with almost zero marketing spend.

> Then, our product failed to generate revenue. Our 500k developers would not pay to use it.

Isn’t it better to work with a smaller number of users but more closely first. Otherwise you burn the chance to impress all of those users. Plus with 100 users you have a decent sample but you can also reasonably interview them all one on one.

Re: Kite is saying farewell and open-sourcing its code

#247

Post by irrational »

LASR wrote: post #235

> Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools. I know this first hand, building a developer tool startup and failing to reach any level of revenue. In the end, the tech was bought out by a larger company to recover a fraction of our VC investment. The challenge is that when you're building software for developers, they already know how it must work. It's like trying to sell magic tricks to magici…

I’m a web developer. My company pays for JetBrains IntelliJ for me. And I love it. But, if I had to pay for it out of my own pocket, I’d use VS Code instead. I’ve used both and IntelliJ is superior to VS Code, but not to such an extent that I would pay my own money for it. But I’m more than happy to have my company buy it for me.

Re: Kite is saying farewell and open-sourcing its code

#248

Post by qiller »

> The largest issue is that state-of-the-art models don’t understand the structure of code, such as non-local context.

Copilot ended up being rarely helpful for me. But on the other hand, MS IntelliCode (I think it only works for C# in full Visual Studio) was a fantastic productivity tool that actually sped up writing code because it does understand the structure of C# and your codebase. Wish it was available for other languages and VSC

Re: Kite is saying farewell and open-sourcing its code

#250

Post by andyfleming »

irrational wrote: post #247
LASR wrote: post #235

> Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools. I know this first hand, building a developer tool startup and failing to reach any level of revenue. In the end, the tech was bought out by a larger company to recover a fraction of our VC investment. The challenge is that when you're building software for developers, they already know how it must work. It's like trying to sell magic tricks to magici…

I’m a web developer. My company pays for JetBrains IntelliJ for me. And I love it. But, if I had to pay for it out of my own pocket, I’d use VS Code instead. I’ve used both and IntelliJ is superior to VS Code, but not to such an extent that I would pay my own money for it. But I’m more than happy to have my company buy it for me.

This is a product that I actually _would_ pay for as an individual. It's reasonably priced and worth the increase in efficiency and better experience. Plus their pricing is fair and flexible.
Post reply on HN