3 ms·
I don't like langchain that much either. It's not as bad as LLAmaIndex and Haystack in regards to extreme overengineering and overabstracting but it still is ba
by StrauXX 2y ago
I don't like langchain that much either. It's not as bad as LLAmaIndex and Haystack in regards to extreme overengineering and overabstracting but it still is bad.
The reason I still use Langchain is that often times I need to be able to swap out LLM service providers, embedding models and so on for clients. Thats really the only part about langchain that really works well.
Btw. you don't have to actually chain langchain entities. You can use all of them directly. That makes the magic framework code issue much more tolerably as Langchain turns from a framework into a library.
- sramam 2y agoHave you considered LiteLLM?
- freezed8 2y ago(jerry here from llamaindex) wait do you have specific examples of "overengineering and overabstracting" from llamaindex? very open to feedback and suggestions on improvement - we've spent a lot of work making sure everything is customizable
- darkteflon 2y agoI don’t think that’s fair to Llama-Index. LI is much more focused, better documented and frankly way easier to use than LangChain, with much lower - or negligible - cognitive overhead. Plus, it plays nice with most everything else. Even if you’re mostly working just with a provider SDK and other lightweight, low-dependency convenience wrappers for stuff you know you’ll almost always need (e.g. Instructor for structured output and retry), you can easily sprinkle LI in where you need it as a wrapper over common context retrieval patterns. Unlike LangChain, which is a nightmare to pull out once you’ve started working with it - LI can be cleanly excised if you change your mind.