6 ms·

> Programming used to be (and still is, to a large extent) an activity that can be done with open and free tools. Yet JetBrains has been a business longer than

by muglug 1y ago

> Programming used to be (and still is, to a large extent) an activity that can be done with open and free tools. Yet JetBrains has been a business longer than some of my colleagues have been alive, and Microsoft’s Visual Basic/C++/Studio made writing software for Windows much easier, and did not come cheap.

dakiol 1y ago
I see a big difference: I do use Jetbrains IDEs (they are nice), but I can switch to vim (or vscode) any time if I need to (e.g., let's say Jetbrains increase their price to a point that doesn't make sense, or perhaps they introduce a pervasive feature that cannot be disabled). The problem with paid LLMs is that one cannot easily switch to open-source ones (because they are not as good as the paid ones). So, it's a dependency that cannot be avoided, and that's imho something that shouldn't be overlooked.
- eevmanu 1y ago
  Open-weight and open-source LLMs are improving as well. While there will likely always be a gap between closed, proprietary models and open models, at the current pace the capabilities of open models could match today’s closed models within months.
- wepple 1y ago
  Anyone can switch from Claude to llama?
  - dakiol 1y ago
    I don't think so. Let's do a silly experiment: antirez, could you ditch Gemini 2.5 PRO and Claude Opus 4, and instead use llama? Like never again go back to Gemini/Claude. I don't think he can (I don't think he would want to). I this is not on antirez, this is on everyone who's paying for LLMs at the moment: they are paying for them because they are so damn good compared to the open source ones... so there's no incentive to switch. But again, that's like the climate change: there's no incentive to pollute less (well, perhaps to save us, but money is more important).
- throwaway8879p 1y ago
  People who understand the importance of this choice but still opt for closed source software are the worst of the worst. You won’t be able to switch to a meaningful vim if you channel your support to closed source software, not for long. Best to put money where the mouth is.
  - dakiol 1y ago
    I don't contribute to vim precisely, but I do contribute to other open source projects. So, I do like to keep this balance between making open source tools better over time and using paid alternatives. I don't think that's possible tho with LLMs at the moment (and I dont think it would be possible in the future, but ofc i could be wrong).
  - muglug 1y ago
    Until you’ve run a big open-source project you won’t quite understand how much time and energy it can eat up. All that effort won’t feed your family.
- rolisz 1y ago
  I was a hardcore vim user 10 years ago, but now I just use PyCharm to work. I'm paid to solve problems, not to futz around with vim configs. Can you make vim work roughly the same way? Probably you can get pretty close. But how many hours do I have to sink into the config? A lot. And suddenly the PyCharm license is cheap. And it's exactly the same thing with LLMs. You want hand crafted beautiful code, untainted by AI? You can still do that. But I'm paid to solve problems. I can solve them faster/solve more of them? I get more money.
  - skydhash 1y ago
    > I was a hardcore vim user 10 years ago, but now I just use PyCharm to work. I'm paid to solve problems, not to futz around with vim configs. The reason I don't like those arguments is that they merge two orthogonal stuff: Solving problems and optimizing your tooling. You can optimize PyCharm just as much you can fiddle with Vim's config. And people are solving with problems with Vim just as you do with an IDE. It's just a matter of preference. In my day job, I have two IDEs, VSCode, and Emacs open. I prefer Emacs to edit and git usage, but there's a few things that only the IDEs can do (as in I don't bother setting emacs to do the same), and VSCode is there because people get dizzy with the way I switch buffers in Emacs.
    - LeafItAlone 1y ago
      >The reason I don't like those arguments is that they merge two orthogonal stuff: Solving problems and optimizing your tooling. You can optimize PyCharm just as much you can fiddle with Vim's config. But you’re ignoring that the “optimizing tooling” is for the goal of making it easier for you. Its spending time now to decrease time spent in the long term. I spent over a decade with Emacs as my sole editor and have since spent over a decade with PyCharm. Day 1 of PyCharm already had practically everything that it took a decade to get working for Emacs, and more. It was pre-optimized for me, so I was able to spend more time working on my code. Did I need to spend time optimizing Emacs? No. But doing so added intellisense and the ability to jump around the codebase very quickly. You _can_ spend just as much time optimizing Emacs, but I didn’t _have_ to in order to get the same result. Or have I spent that much time optimizing it since, for even more functionality.
- layer8 1y ago
  > because they are not as good as the paid ones The alternative is to restrict yourself to “not as good” ones already now.
- jacobr1 1y ago
  Seems the same to me. If you are using the llm as a tool to build your product (rather than a dependency within it for functionality) you can easily switch to a different model, or IDE/Agentic-coder in the same way you can switch between vim and emacs. It might be a `worse` experience for you or have fewer feature, but you aren't locked in, other than in the sense of your preference for productivity. In fact in seems likely to mee that the tools I'll be using a year from now are going to be different than today - and almost certainly a different model will be leading. For example google surprised everyone with the quality of 2.5.
- Aurornis 1y ago
  > The problem with paid LLMs is that one cannot easily switch to open-source ones (because they are not as good as the paid ones). So, it's a dependency that cannot be avoided How is that any different than JetBrains versus vim? Calling LLMs a strong dependency or a lock-in also doesn’t make sense. It’s so easy to switch LLMs or even toggle between them within something like Copilot. You can also just not use them and write the code manually, which is something you still do in any non-trivial app. I don’t understand all of these people talking about strong dependencies or vendor lock in, unless those comments are coming from people who haven’t actually used the tools?
ta12653421 1y ago
Ah, there are community editions of the most imiportant tools (since 10+ years), and i doubt e.g. MS will close VS.NET Community Version in the future.

by muglug 1y ago

dakiol 1y ago

I see a big difference: I do use Jetbrains IDEs (they are nice), but I can switch to vim (or vscode) any time if I need to (e.g., let's say Jetbrains increase their price to a point that doesn't make sense, or perhaps they introduce a pervasive feature that cannot be disabled). The problem with paid LLMs is that one cannot easily switch to open-source ones (because they are not as good as the paid ones). So, it's a dependency that cannot be avoided, and that's imho something that shouldn't be overlooked.

eevmanu 1y ago
Open-weight and open-source LLMs are improving as well. While there will likely always be a gap between closed, proprietary models and open models, at the current pace the capabilities of open models could match today’s closed models within months.
wepple 1y ago
Anyone can switch from Claude to llama?
- dakiol 1y ago
  I don't think so. Let's do a silly experiment: antirez, could you ditch Gemini 2.5 PRO and Claude Opus 4, and instead use llama? Like never again go back to Gemini/Claude. I don't think he can (I don't think he would want to). I this is not on antirez, this is on everyone who's paying for LLMs at the moment: they are paying for them because they are so damn good compared to the open source ones... so there's no incentive to switch. But again, that's like the climate change: there's no incentive to pollute less (well, perhaps to save us, but money is more important).
throwaway8879p 1y ago
People who understand the importance of this choice but still opt for closed source software are the worst of the worst. You won’t be able to switch to a meaningful vim if you channel your support to closed source software, not for long. Best to put money where the mouth is.
- dakiol 1y ago
  I don't contribute to vim precisely, but I do contribute to other open source projects. So, I do like to keep this balance between making open source tools better over time and using paid alternatives. I don't think that's possible tho with LLMs at the moment (and I dont think it would be possible in the future, but ofc i could be wrong).
- muglug 1y ago
  Until you’ve run a big open-source project you won’t quite understand how much time and energy it can eat up. All that effort won’t feed your family.
rolisz 1y ago
I was a hardcore vim user 10 years ago, but now I just use PyCharm to work. I'm paid to solve problems, not to futz around with vim configs. Can you make vim work roughly the same way? Probably you can get pretty close. But how many hours do I have to sink into the config? A lot. And suddenly the PyCharm license is cheap. And it's exactly the same thing with LLMs. You want hand crafted beautiful code, untainted by AI? You can still do that. But I'm paid to solve problems. I can solve them faster/solve more of them? I get more money.
- skydhash 1y ago
  > I was a hardcore vim user 10 years ago, but now I just use PyCharm to work. I'm paid to solve problems, not to futz around with vim configs. The reason I don't like those arguments is that they merge two orthogonal stuff: Solving problems and optimizing your tooling. You can optimize PyCharm just as much you can fiddle with Vim's config. And people are solving with problems with Vim just as you do with an IDE. It's just a matter of preference. In my day job, I have two IDEs, VSCode, and Emacs open. I prefer Emacs to edit and git usage, but there's a few things that only the IDEs can do (as in I don't bother setting emacs to do the same), and VSCode is there because people get dizzy with the way I switch buffers in Emacs.
  - LeafItAlone 1y ago
    >The reason I don't like those arguments is that they merge two orthogonal stuff: Solving problems and optimizing your tooling. You can optimize PyCharm just as much you can fiddle with Vim's config. But you’re ignoring that the “optimizing tooling” is for the goal of making it easier for you. Its spending time now to decrease time spent in the long term. I spent over a decade with Emacs as my sole editor and have since spent over a decade with PyCharm. Day 1 of PyCharm already had practically everything that it took a decade to get working for Emacs, and more. It was pre-optimized for me, so I was able to spend more time working on my code. Did I need to spend time optimizing Emacs? No. But doing so added intellisense and the ability to jump around the codebase very quickly. You _can_ spend just as much time optimizing Emacs, but I didn’t _have_ to in order to get the same result. Or have I spent that much time optimizing it since, for even more functionality.
layer8 1y ago
> because they are not as good as the paid ones The alternative is to restrict yourself to “not as good” ones already now.
jacobr1 1y ago
Seems the same to me. If you are using the llm as a tool to build your product (rather than a dependency within it for functionality) you can easily switch to a different model, or IDE/Agentic-coder in the same way you can switch between vim and emacs. It might be a `worse` experience for you or have fewer feature, but you aren't locked in, other than in the sense of your preference for productivity. In fact in seems likely to mee that the tools I'll be using a year from now are going to be different than today - and almost certainly a different model will be leading. For example google surprised everyone with the quality of 2.5.
Aurornis 1y ago
> The problem with paid LLMs is that one cannot easily switch to open-source ones (because they are not as good as the paid ones). So, it's a dependency that cannot be avoided How is that any different than JetBrains versus vim? Calling LLMs a strong dependency or a lock-in also doesn’t make sense. It’s so easy to switch LLMs or even toggle between them within something like Copilot. You can also just not use them and write the code manually, which is something you still do in any non-trivial app. I don’t understand all of these people talking about strong dependencies or vendor lock in, unless those comments are coming from people who haven’t actually used the tools?

ta12653421 1y ago

Ah, there are community editions of the most imiportant tools (since 10+ years), and i doubt e.g. MS will close VS.NET Community Version in the future.