Pro Tip: Ask the agent or another LLM to generate a prompt for an agent of what you want to build, then tweak it as needed, and then use that prompt. I've had decent success prompting Junie (JetBrains AI) a few times because of this.
I switched to this and honestly, more or less feels the same as claude code except with a fancy UI and built-in mcp servers for automated memory management. But I am sticking to it so I don't have to deal with vendor lockin (I heavily disagree with what antrophic is doing when it comes to 'safety')
The pivot is likely because there's more VC dollars there.
It is a handy AI-cli for any terminal. I've been using the "terminal" app for a few months and found it was a very competent coding tool. I kept giving feedback to the team that they should "beef up" the coding side because until Claude Code this was my daily driver for writing code until Opus 4. The interface still is a bit janky because i think it's trying to predict whether you're typing a console command or talking to it for new prompt (it tries to dynamical assess that but often enough it crosses the streams). Regardless, I highly recommend checking it out, I've had some great success with it.
All these monolithic agents are so wasteful. Having an agent orchestration service is so much more efficient and maintainable. My work in progress rust agent takes less cpu/memory for a whole swarm than one claude code instance.
Desperate pivot aside, I don't see how anyone competes with the big labs on coding agents. They can serve the models at a fraction of the API cost, can trivially add post training to fill gaps and have way deeper enterprise penetration.
Don't need to compete - demonstrate some ability to use AI in an easy to understand way, get bought out at valuation. Bad for investors, awesome for founders.
Sometimes worse is better. I haven't used it a lot yet, but so far I quite like this reduced focus on editing - I see this as close to the sweet spot of vibe coding, in between Claude Code and a full editor/IDE, whereby I generally trust the agent to right the code, but just want a simple editor to steer it more effectively.
I see this similarly to the way I would have a work session with a more junior dev where sometimes during the chat I would "drop down in abstraction" to show them how I'd code a specific function, but I don't want to take over - I'm giving them a bit of direction, and it's up to them to either keep my code or ignore/rewrite it to better suit their approach.
If warp had just stuck to being a decent terminal emulator with great UI, I would be using it without question. This AI nonsense is why I don't even consider them an option.
Claude Code and Codex provide something like $5000 of tokens for $200. How will any other offering depending on their models ever compete with that except by luring suckers or tire kickers?
this concerns me given what I've seen generated by these tools. In 10? 5? 1? year(s) are we going to see an influx of CVEs or hiring of Senior+ level developers solely for the purpose of cleaning up these messes?
Looking at the other side of the coin, I'm hoping that the proliferation of unsafe code would lead to more investment in vulnerability testing tooling, and particularly in reducing false positives by generating potential exploits. Having better security testing would be a massive boon to the industry regardless of whether we use AI to write the code.
The part I don't get is the pricing. Seems like its pricing is solely based on requests. Then how would someone use gpt 4.1 when opus is charing the same price???
22 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 43.9 ms ] threadWhy suddenly agentic coding?
It is a handy AI-cli for any terminal. I've been using the "terminal" app for a few months and found it was a very competent coding tool. I kept giving feedback to the team that they should "beef up" the coding side because until Claude Code this was my daily driver for writing code until Opus 4. The interface still is a bit janky because i think it's trying to predict whether you're typing a console command or talking to it for new prompt (it tries to dynamical assess that but often enough it crosses the streams). Regardless, I highly recommend checking it out, I've had some great success with it.
Can we please standardize this and just have one markdown file that all the agents can use?
Reference: Browser Company
(2) A Microsoft VP of product spends enough time writing code to be a relevant testimonial?
I see this similarly to the way I would have a work session with a more junior dev where sometimes during the chat I would "drop down in abstraction" to show them how I'd code a specific function, but I don't want to take over - I'm giving them a bit of direction, and it's up to them to either keep my code or ignore/rewrite it to better suit their approach.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jKOVAa1KAo
this concerns me given what I've seen generated by these tools. In 10? 5? 1? year(s) are we going to see an influx of CVEs or hiring of Senior+ level developers solely for the purpose of cleaning up these messes?