3 ms·
LiteLLM is quite battle tested at this point as well. > it reimplements provider interfaces rather than leveraging official SDKs, which can lead to compatibili
by chuckhend 1y ago
LiteLLM is quite battle tested at this point as well.
> it reimplements provider interfaces rather than leveraging official SDKs, which can lead to compatibility issues and unexpected behavior modifications
Leveraging official SDKs also does not solve compatibility issues. any_llm would still need to maintain compatibility with those offical SDKs. I don't think one way clearly better than the other here.
- amanda99 1y agoBeing battle tested is the only good thing I can say about LiteLLM.
- scosman 1y agoYou can add in it's still 10x better than LangChain
- AMeckes 1y agoThat's true. We traded API compatibility work for SDK compatibility work. Our bet is that providers are better at maintaining their own SDKs than we are at reimplementing their APIs. SDKs break less often and more predictably than APIs, plus we get provider-implemented features (retries, auth refresh, etc) "for free." Not zero maintenance, but definitely less. We use this in production at Mozilla.ai, so it'll stay actively maintained.