11 ms·

I'm glad to see this. I'm happy to plan to pay for Zed - its not there yet but its well on its way - But I don't want essentially _any_ of the AI and telemetry

I'm glad to see this. I'm happy to plan to pay for Zed - its not there yet but its well on its way - But I don't want essentially _any_ of the AI and telemetry features. The fact of the matter is, I am not even using AI features much in my editor anymore. I've tried Copilot and friends over and over and it's just not _there_. It needs to be in a different location in the software development pipeline (Probably code reviews and RAG'ing up for documentation). - I can kick out some money for a settings sync service. - I can kick out some money to essentially "subscribe" for maintenance. I don't personally think that an editor is going to return the kinds of ROI VCs look for. So.... yeah. I might be back to Emacs in a year with IntelliJ for powerful IDE needs....

dilDDoS 1y ago
I'm happy to finally see this take. I've been feeling pretty left out with everyone singing the praises of AI-assisted editors while I struggle to understand the hype. I've tried a few and it's never felt like an improvement to my workflow. At least for my team, the actual writing of code has never been the problem or bottleneck. Getting code reviewed by someone else in a timely manner has been a problem though, so we're considering AI code reviews to at least take some burden out of the process.
- Aurornis 1y ago
  AI code reviews are the worst place to introduce AI, in my experience. They can find a few things quickly, but they can also send people down unnecessary paths or be easily persuaded by comments or even the slightest pushback from someone. They're fast to cave in and agree with any input. It can also encourage laziness: If the AI reviewer didn't spot anything, it's easier to justify skimming the commit. Everyone says they won't do it, but it happens. For anything AI related, having manual human review as the final step is key.
  - pnathan 1y ago
    That's a fantastic counterpoint. I've found AI reviewers to be useful on a first pass, at a small-pieces level. But I hear your opinion!
  - aozgaa 1y ago
    Agreed. LLM’s are fundamentally text generators, not verifiers. They might spot some typos and stylistic discrepancies based on their corpus, but they do not reason. It’s just not what the basic building blocks of the architecture do. In my experience you need to do a lot of coaxing and setting up guardrails to keep them even roughly on track. (And maybe the LLM companies will build this into the products they sell, but it’s demonstrably not there today)
    - CharlesW 1y ago
      > LLM’s are fundamentally text generators, not verifiers. In reality they work quite well for text and numeric (via tools) analysis, too. I've found them to be powerful tools for "linting" a codebase against adequately documented standards and architectural guidance, especially when given the use of type checkers, static analysis tools, etc.
      - skydhash 1y ago
        The value of an analysis is the decision that will be taken after getting the result. So will you actually fix the codebase or it’s just a nice report to frame and put on the wall?
        CharlesW 1y ago
        > So will you actually fix the codebase… Code quality improvements is the reason to do it, so *yes*. Of course, anyone using AI for analysis is probably leveraging AI for the "fix" part too (or at least I am).
  - chuckadams 1y ago
    I find the summary that copilot generates is more useful than the review comments most of the time. That said, I have seen it make some good catches. It’s a matter of expectations: the AI is not going to have hurt feelings if you reject all its suggestions, so I feel even more free to reject it feedback with the briefest of dismissals.
  - kmacdough 1y ago
    I agree and disagree. I think it's important to make it very visually clear that it is not really a PR, but rather an advanced style checker. I think they can be very useful for assessing more rote/repetitive standards that are a bit beyond what standard linters/analysis can provide. Things like institutional standards, lessons learned, etc. But if it uses the normal PR pipeline rather than the checker pipeline, it gives the false impression that it is a PR, which is not.
  - moomoo11 1y ago
    What about something like this? Link to the ticket. Hopefully your team cares enough to write good tickets. So if the problem is defined well in the ticket, do the code changed actually address it? For example for a bug fix. It can check the tests and see if the PR is testing the conditions that caused the bug. It can check the code changed to see if it fits the requirements. I think the goal with AI for creative stuff should be to make things more efficient, not replace necessarily. Whoever code reviews can get up to speed fast. I’ve been on teams where people would code review a section of the code they aren’t familiar with too much. In this case if it saves them 30 minutes then great!
- kstrauser 1y ago
  IMO, the AI bits are the least interesting parts of Zed. I hardly use them. For me, Zed is a blazing fast, lightweight editor with a large community supporting plugins and themes and all that. It's not exactly Sublime Text, but to me it's the nearest spiritual successor while being fully GPL'ed Free Software. I don't mind the AI stuff. It's been nice when I used it, but I have a different workflow for those things right now. But all the stuff besides AI? It's freaking great.
  - dns_snek 1y ago
    > while being fully GPL'ed Free Software I wouldn't sing them praises for being FOSS. All contributions are signed away under their CLA which will allow them to pull the plug when their VCs come knocking and the FOSS angle is no longer convenient.
    - bigfudge 1y ago
      How is this true if it’s actually GPL as gp claimed?
      - carey 1y ago
        The FSF also typically requires a copyright assignment for their GPL code. Nobody thinks that they’ll ever relicense Emacs, though.
        kergonath 1y ago
        They’re also not exactly a VC-backed startup.
        johnny22 1y ago
        yeah I don't mind signing a CLA for copyleft software to a non-profit org, but i do with a for-profit one.
        ekidd 1y ago
        It has been decades since I've seen an FSF CLA packet, but if I recall correctly, the FSF also made legally-binding promises back to the original copyright holder, promising to distribute the code under some kind of "free" (libre, not gratuit) license in the future. This would have allowed them to switch from GPL 2 to GPL 3, or even to an MIT license. But it wouldn't have allowed them to make the software proprietary. But like I said, it has been decades since I've seen any of their paperwork, and memory is fallible.
- jama211 1y ago
  Highlighting code and having cursor show the recommended changes and make them for me with one click is just a time saver over me copying and pasting back and forth to an external chat window. I don’t find the autocomplete particularly useful, but the inbuilt chat is a useful feature honestly.
- skrtskrt 1y ago
  AI is solid for kicking off learning a language or framework you've never touched before. But in my day to day I'm just writing pure Go, highly concurrent and performance-sensitive distributed systems, and AI is just so wrong on everything that actually matters that I have stopped using it.
  - skydhash 1y ago
    But so is a good book. And it costs way less. Even though searching may be quicker, having a good digest of a feature is worth the half hour I can spend browsing a chapter. It’s directly picking an expert brains. Then you take notes, compare what you found online and the updated documentation and soon you develop a real understanding of the language/tool abstraction.
    - skrtskrt 1y ago
      In an ideal world, yeah. But most software instructional docs and books are hot garbage, out of date, incorrect, incomplete, and far too shallow.
      - skydhash 1y ago
        Are you reading all the books on the market? You can find some good recommendation lists. No need to get every new releases from Packtpub.
        hollowturtle 1y ago
        I knew you were up to jab Packt XD I have yet to find a good book from Packt it may be exist. My fav publishers are manning and nostarch press
  - hollowturtle 1y ago
    AI has stale knowledge I won't use it for learning, especially because it's biased towards low quality JS repos on which has been trained on
- aDyslecticCrow 1y ago
  zed was just a fast and simple replacement for Atom (R.I.P) or vscode. Then they put AI on top when that showed up. I don't care for it, and appreciate a project like this to return the program to its core.
- stouset 1y ago
  I'm the opposite. I held out this view for a long, long time. About two months ago, I gave Zed's agentic sidebar a try. I'm blown away. I'm a very senior engineer. I have extremely high standards. I know a lot of technologies top to bottom. And I have immediately found it insanely helpful. There are a few hugely valuable use-cases for me. The first is writing tests. Agentic AI right now is shockingly good at figuring out what your code should be doing and writing tests that test the behavior, all the verbose and annoying edge cases, and even find bugs in your implementation. It's goddamn near magic. That's not to say they're perfect, sometimes they do get confused and assume your implementation is correct when the test doesn't pass. Sometimes they do misunderstand. But the overall improvement for me has been enormous. They also generally write good tests. Refactoring never breaks the tests they've written unless an actually-visible behavior change has happened. Second is trying to figure out the answer to really thorny problems. I'm extremely good at doing this, but agentic AI has made me faster. It can prototype approaches that I want to try faster than I can and we can see if the approach works extremely quickly. I might not use the code it wrote, but the ability to rapidly give four or five alternatives a go versus the one or two I would personally have time for is massively helpful. I've even had them find approaches I never would have considered that ended up being my clear favorite. They're not always better than me at choosing which one to go with (I often ask for their summarized recommendations), but the sheer speed in which they get them done is a godsend. Finding the source of tricky bugs is one more case that they excel in. I can do this work too, but again, they're faster. They'll write multiple tests with debugging output that leads to the answer in barely more time than it takes to just run the tests. A bug that might take me an hour to track down can take them five minutes. Even for a really hard one, I can set them on the task while I go make coffee or take the dog for a walk. They'll figure it out while I'm gone. Lastly, when I have some spare time, I love asking them what areas of a code base could use some love and what are the biggest reward-to-effort ratio wins. They are great at finding those places and helping me constantly make things just a little bit better, one place at a time. Overall, it's like having an extremely eager and prolific junior assistant with an encyclopedic brain. You have to give them guidance, you have to take some of their work with a grain of salt, but used correctly they're insanely productive. And as a bonus, unlike a real human, you don't ever have to feel guilty about throwing away their work if it doesn't make the grade.
- sli 1y ago
  I found the OP comment amusing because Emacs with a Jetbrains IDE when I need it is exactly my setup. The only thing I've found AI to be consistently good for is spitting out boring boilerplate so I can do the fun parts myself.
- TheCapeGreek 1y ago
  I always hear this "writing code isn't the bottleneck" used when talking about AI, as if there are chosen few engineers who only work on completely new and abstract domains that require a PhD and 20 years of experience that an LLM can not fathom. Yes, you're right, AI cannot be a senior engineer with you. It can take a lot of the grunt work away though, which is still part of the job for many devs at all skill levels. Or it's useful for technologies you're not as well versed in. Or simply an inertia breaker if you're not feeling very motivated for getting to work. Find what it's good for in your workflows and try it for that.
  - 3836293648 1y ago
    I feel like everyone praising AI is a webdev with extremely predictable problems that are almost entirely boilerplate. I've tried throwing LLMs at every part of the work I do and it's been entirely useless at everything beyond explaining new libraries or being a search engine. Any time it tries to write any code at all it's been entirely useless. But then I see so many praising all it can do and how much work they get done with their agents and I'm just left confused.
    - typpilol 1y ago
      Can I ask what kind of work area you're in?
    - creshal 1y ago
      Yeah, the more boilerplate your code needs, the better AI works, and the more it saves you time by wasting less on boilerplate. AI tooling my experience: - React/similar webdev where I "need" 1000 lines of boilerplate to do what jquery did in half a line 10 years ago: Perfect - AbstractEnterpriseJavaFactorySingletonFactoryClassBuilder: Very helpful - Powershell monstrosities where I "need" 1000 lines of Verb-Nouning to do what bash does in three lines: If you feed it a template that makes it stop hallucinating nonexisting Verb-Nouners, perfect - Abstract algorithmic problems in any language: Eh, okay - All the `foo,err=…;if err…` boilerplate in Golang: Decent - Actually writing well-optimized business logic in any of those contexts: Forget about it Since I spend 95% of my time writing tight business logic, it's mostly useless.
asadm 1y ago
I think you and I are having very different experiences with these copilot/agents. So I have questions for you, how do you: - generate new modules/classes in your projects - integrate module A into module B or entire codebase A into codebase B? - get someones github project up and running on your machine, do you manually fiddle with cmakes and npms? - convert an idea or plan.md or a paper into working code? - Fix flakes, fix test<->code discrepancies or increase coverage etc If you do all this manually, why?
- pnathan 1y ago
  I'm pretty fast coding and know what I'm doing. My ideas are too complex for claude to just crap out. If I'm really tired I'll use claude to write tests. Mostly they aren't really good though. AI doesn't really help me code vs me doing it myself. AI is better doing other things...
  - asadm 1y ago
    > AI is better doing other things... I agree. For me the other things are non-business logic, build details, duplicate/bootstrap code that isn't exciting.
- stevenbedrick 1y ago
  To do those things, I do the same thing I've been doing for the thirty years that I've been programming professionally: I spend the (typically modest) time it takes to learn to understand the code that I am integrating into my project well enough to know how to use it, and I use my brain to convert my ideas into code. Sometimes this requires me to learn new things (a new tool, a new library, etc.). There is usually typing involved, and sometimes a whiteboard or notebook. Usually it's not all that much effort to glance over some other project's documentation to figure out how to integrate it, and as to creating working code from an idea or plan... isn't that a big part of what "programming" is all about? I'm confused by the idea that suddenly we need machines to do that for us: at a practical level, that is literally what we do. And at a conceptual level, the process of trying to reify an idea into an actual working program is usually very valuable for iterating on one's plans, and identifying problems with one's mental model of whatever you're trying to write a program about (c.f. Naur's notions about theory building). As to why one should do this manually (as opposed to letting the magic surprise box take a stab at it for you), a few answers come to mind: 1. I'm professionally and personally accountable for the code I write and what it does, and so I want to make sure I actually understand what it's doing. I would hate to have to tell a colleague or customer "no, I don't know why it did $HORRIBLE_THING, and it's because I didn't actually write the program that I gave you, the AI did!" 2. At a practical level, #1 means that I need to be able to be confident that I know what's going on in my code and that I can fix it when it breaks. Fiddling with cmakes and npms is part of how I become confident that I understand what I'm building well enough to deal with the inevitable problems that will occur down the road. 3. Along similar lines, I need to be able to say that what I'm producing isn't violating somebody's IP, and to know where everything came from. 4. I'd rather spend my time making things work right the first time, than endlessly mess around trying to find the right incantation to explain to the magic box what I want it to do in sufficient detail. That seems like more work than just writing it myself. Now, I will certainly agree that there is a role for LLMs in coding: fancier auto-complete and refactoring tools are great, and I have also found Zed's inline LLM assistant mode helpful for very limited things (basically as a souped-up find and replace feature, though I should note that I've also seen it introduce spectacular and complicated-to-fix errors). But those are all about making me more efficient at interacting with code I've already written, not doing the main body of the work for me. So that's my $0.02!
senko 1y ago
Can't you just not use / disable AI and telemetry? It's not shoved in your face. I would prefer an off-by-default telemetry, but if there's a simple opt-out, that's fine?
- throwawayxcmz 1y ago
  You can't disable the culture.
  - computerthings 1y ago
    [dead]
- pnathan 1y ago
  It's a question of the business model.
mootoday 1y ago
You can opt out of AI features in Zed [0]. [0] https://zed.dev/blog/disable-ai-features https://zed.dev/blog/disable-ai-features
- inetknght 1y ago
  Opt-out instead of opt-in is an anti-feature.
  - gleenn 1y ago
    IIRC it was opt-in.
  - echelon 1y ago
    You can leave LLM Q&A on the table if you like, but tab auto complete is a godlike power. I'm auto-completing crazy complex Rust match branches for record transformation. 30 lines of code, hitting dozens of fields and mutations, all with a single keystroke. And then it knows where my next edit will be. I've been programming for decades and I love this. It's easily a 30-50% efficiency gain when plumbing fields or refactoring.
    - typpilol 1y ago
      Honestly I find it useful for simple things like having to change something in a ton of columns you can't do with an easy find replace. Really is game changing
- oneshtein 1y ago
  How to opt-out of unrequested pop-ups and various helpers, or download and installation of binary files without permission?
insane_dreamer 1y ago
didn't Zed recently add a config option to disable all AI features?
agosta 1y ago
"Happy to see this". The folks over at Zed did all of the hard work of making the thing, try to make some money, and then someone just forks it to get rid of all of the things they need to put in to make it worth their time developing. I understand if you don't want to pay for Zed - but to celebrate someone making it harder for Zed to make money when you weren't paying them to begin with -"Happy to PLAN to pay for Zed"- is beyond.
- eviks 1y ago
  > I understand if you don't want to pay for Zed But he does say he does want to pay!
- pnathan 1y ago
  I pay for intellij. I pay for Obsidian. I would pay for zed. The only path forward I see for a classic VC investment is the AI drive. But I don't think the AI bit is valuable. A powerful plugin system would be sufficient to achieve LLM integration. So I don't think this is a worthwhile investment unless the product gets a LOT worse and becomes actively awful for users who aren't paying beaucoup bucks for AI tooling- the ROI will have to center the AI drive. It's not a move that will generate a good outcome for the average user.
coneonthefloor 1y ago
Well said, Zed could be great if they just stopped with the AI stuff and focused on text editing.
AceJohnny2 1y ago
> I can kick out some money to essentially "subscribe" for maintenance. People on HN and other geeky forums keep saying this, but the fact of the matter is that you're a minority and not enough people would do it to actually sustain a product/company like Zed.
- ethanwillis 1y ago
  It's a code editor so I think the geeky forums are relevant here. Also, this post is higher on HN than the post about raising capital from Sequoia where many of the comments are about how negatively they view the raising of capital from VC. The fact of the matter is that people want this and the inability of companies to monetize on that desire says nothing about whether the desire is large enough to "actually sustain" a product/company like Zed.
nsm 1y ago
Have you considered sublime text as the lightweight editor?
wahnfrieden 1y ago
“I tried the worst one”
DerArzt 1y ago
Just to echo the sentiment, I've had struggles trying to figure out how to use LLMs in my daily work. I've landed on using it as part of my code review process before asking someone to review my PR. I get a lot of the nice things that LLMs can give me (a second set of eyes, a somewhat consistent reviewer) but without the downsides (no waiting on the agent to finish writing code that may not work, costs me personally nothing in time and effort as my Org pays for the LLM, when it hallucinates I can easily ignore it).

dilDDoS 1y ago

I'm happy to finally see this take. I've been feeling pretty left out with everyone singing the praises of AI-assisted editors while I struggle to understand the hype. I've tried a few and it's never felt like an improvement to my workflow. At least for my team, the actual writing of code has never been the problem or bottleneck. Getting code reviewed by someone else in a timely manner has been a problem though, so we're considering AI code reviews to at least take some burden out of the process.

Aurornis 1y ago
AI code reviews are the worst place to introduce AI, in my experience. They can find a few things quickly, but they can also send people down unnecessary paths or be easily persuaded by comments or even the slightest pushback from someone. They're fast to cave in and agree with any input. It can also encourage laziness: If the AI reviewer didn't spot anything, it's easier to justify skimming the commit. Everyone says they won't do it, but it happens. For anything AI related, having manual human review as the final step is key.
- pnathan 1y ago
  That's a fantastic counterpoint. I've found AI reviewers to be useful on a first pass, at a small-pieces level. But I hear your opinion!
- aozgaa 1y ago
  Agreed. LLM’s are fundamentally text generators, not verifiers. They might spot some typos and stylistic discrepancies based on their corpus, but they do not reason. It’s just not what the basic building blocks of the architecture do. In my experience you need to do a lot of coaxing and setting up guardrails to keep them even roughly on track. (And maybe the LLM companies will build this into the products they sell, but it’s demonstrably not there today)
  - CharlesW 1y ago
    > LLM’s are fundamentally text generators, not verifiers. In reality they work quite well for text and numeric (via tools) analysis, too. I've found them to be powerful tools for "linting" a codebase against adequately documented standards and architectural guidance, especially when given the use of type checkers, static analysis tools, etc.
    - skydhash 1y ago
      The value of an analysis is the decision that will be taken after getting the result. So will you actually fix the codebase or it’s just a nice report to frame and put on the wall?
      - CharlesW 1y ago
        > So will you actually fix the codebase… Code quality improvements is the reason to do it, so *yes*. Of course, anyone using AI for analysis is probably leveraging AI for the "fix" part too (or at least I am).
- chuckadams 1y ago
  I find the summary that copilot generates is more useful than the review comments most of the time. That said, I have seen it make some good catches. It’s a matter of expectations: the AI is not going to have hurt feelings if you reject all its suggestions, so I feel even more free to reject it feedback with the briefest of dismissals.
- kmacdough 1y ago
  I agree and disagree. I think it's important to make it very visually clear that it is not really a PR, but rather an advanced style checker. I think they can be very useful for assessing more rote/repetitive standards that are a bit beyond what standard linters/analysis can provide. Things like institutional standards, lessons learned, etc. But if it uses the normal PR pipeline rather than the checker pipeline, it gives the false impression that it is a PR, which is not.
- moomoo11 1y ago
  What about something like this? Link to the ticket. Hopefully your team cares enough to write good tickets. So if the problem is defined well in the ticket, do the code changed actually address it? For example for a bug fix. It can check the tests and see if the PR is testing the conditions that caused the bug. It can check the code changed to see if it fits the requirements. I think the goal with AI for creative stuff should be to make things more efficient, not replace necessarily. Whoever code reviews can get up to speed fast. I’ve been on teams where people would code review a section of the code they aren’t familiar with too much. In this case if it saves them 30 minutes then great!
kstrauser 1y ago
IMO, the AI bits are the least interesting parts of Zed. I hardly use them. For me, Zed is a blazing fast, lightweight editor with a large community supporting plugins and themes and all that. It's not exactly Sublime Text, but to me it's the nearest spiritual successor while being fully GPL'ed Free Software. I don't mind the AI stuff. It's been nice when I used it, but I have a different workflow for those things right now. But all the stuff besides AI? It's freaking great.
- dns_snek 1y ago
  > while being fully GPL'ed Free Software I wouldn't sing them praises for being FOSS. All contributions are signed away under their CLA which will allow them to pull the plug when their VCs come knocking and the FOSS angle is no longer convenient.
  - bigfudge 1y ago
    How is this true if it’s actually GPL as gp claimed?
    - carey 1y ago
      The FSF also typically requires a copyright assignment for their GPL code. Nobody thinks that they’ll ever relicense Emacs, though.
      - kergonath 1y ago
        They’re also not exactly a VC-backed startup.
      - johnny22 1y ago
        yeah I don't mind signing a CLA for copyleft software to a non-profit org, but i do with a for-profit one.
      - ekidd 1y ago
        It has been decades since I've seen an FSF CLA packet, but if I recall correctly, the FSF also made legally-binding promises back to the original copyright holder, promising to distribute the code under some kind of "free" (libre, not gratuit) license in the future. This would have allowed them to switch from GPL 2 to GPL 3, or even to an MIT license. But it wouldn't have allowed them to make the software proprietary. But like I said, it has been decades since I've seen any of their paperwork, and memory is fallible.
jama211 1y ago
Highlighting code and having cursor show the recommended changes and make them for me with one click is just a time saver over me copying and pasting back and forth to an external chat window. I don’t find the autocomplete particularly useful, but the inbuilt chat is a useful feature honestly.
skrtskrt 1y ago
AI is solid for kicking off learning a language or framework you've never touched before. But in my day to day I'm just writing pure Go, highly concurrent and performance-sensitive distributed systems, and AI is just so wrong on everything that actually matters that I have stopped using it.
- skydhash 1y ago
  But so is a good book. And it costs way less. Even though searching may be quicker, having a good digest of a feature is worth the half hour I can spend browsing a chapter. It’s directly picking an expert brains. Then you take notes, compare what you found online and the updated documentation and soon you develop a real understanding of the language/tool abstraction.
  - skrtskrt 1y ago
    In an ideal world, yeah. But most software instructional docs and books are hot garbage, out of date, incorrect, incomplete, and far too shallow.
    - skydhash 1y ago
      Are you reading all the books on the market? You can find some good recommendation lists. No need to get every new releases from Packtpub.
      - hollowturtle 1y ago
        I knew you were up to jab Packt XD I have yet to find a good book from Packt it may be exist. My fav publishers are manning and nostarch press
- hollowturtle 1y ago
  AI has stale knowledge I won't use it for learning, especially because it's biased towards low quality JS repos on which has been trained on
aDyslecticCrow 1y ago
zed was just a fast and simple replacement for Atom (R.I.P) or vscode. Then they put AI on top when that showed up. I don't care for it, and appreciate a project like this to return the program to its core.
stouset 1y ago
I'm the opposite. I held out this view for a long, long time. About two months ago, I gave Zed's agentic sidebar a try. I'm blown away. I'm a very senior engineer. I have extremely high standards. I know a lot of technologies top to bottom. And I have immediately found it insanely helpful. There are a few hugely valuable use-cases for me. The first is writing tests. Agentic AI right now is shockingly good at figuring out what your code should be doing and writing tests that test the behavior, all the verbose and annoying edge cases, and even find bugs in your implementation. It's goddamn near magic. That's not to say they're perfect, sometimes they do get confused and assume your implementation is correct when the test doesn't pass. Sometimes they do misunderstand. But the overall improvement for me has been enormous. They also generally write good tests. Refactoring never breaks the tests they've written unless an actually-visible behavior change has happened. Second is trying to figure out the answer to really thorny problems. I'm extremely good at doing this, but agentic AI has made me faster. It can prototype approaches that I want to try faster than I can and we can see if the approach works extremely quickly. I might not use the code it wrote, but the ability to rapidly give four or five alternatives a go versus the one or two I would personally have time for is massively helpful. I've even had them find approaches I never would have considered that ended up being my clear favorite. They're not always better than me at choosing which one to go with (I often ask for their summarized recommendations), but the sheer speed in which they get them done is a godsend. Finding the source of tricky bugs is one more case that they excel in. I can do this work too, but again, they're faster. They'll write multiple tests with debugging output that leads to the answer in barely more time than it takes to just run the tests. A bug that might take me an hour to track down can take them five minutes. Even for a really hard one, I can set them on the task while I go make coffee or take the dog for a walk. They'll figure it out while I'm gone. Lastly, when I have some spare time, I love asking them what areas of a code base could use some love and what are the biggest reward-to-effort ratio wins. They are great at finding those places and helping me constantly make things just a little bit better, one place at a time. Overall, it's like having an extremely eager and prolific junior assistant with an encyclopedic brain. You have to give them guidance, you have to take some of their work with a grain of salt, but used correctly they're insanely productive. And as a bonus, unlike a real human, you don't ever have to feel guilty about throwing away their work if it doesn't make the grade.
sli 1y ago
I found the OP comment amusing because Emacs with a Jetbrains IDE when I need it is exactly my setup. The only thing I've found AI to be consistently good for is spitting out boring boilerplate so I can do the fun parts myself.
TheCapeGreek 1y ago
I always hear this "writing code isn't the bottleneck" used when talking about AI, as if there are chosen few engineers who only work on completely new and abstract domains that require a PhD and 20 years of experience that an LLM can not fathom. Yes, you're right, AI cannot be a senior engineer with you. It can take a lot of the grunt work away though, which is still part of the job for many devs at all skill levels. Or it's useful for technologies you're not as well versed in. Or simply an inertia breaker if you're not feeling very motivated for getting to work. Find what it's good for in your workflows and try it for that.
- 3836293648 1y ago
  I feel like everyone praising AI is a webdev with extremely predictable problems that are almost entirely boilerplate. I've tried throwing LLMs at every part of the work I do and it's been entirely useless at everything beyond explaining new libraries or being a search engine. Any time it tries to write any code at all it's been entirely useless. But then I see so many praising all it can do and how much work they get done with their agents and I'm just left confused.
  - typpilol 1y ago
    Can I ask what kind of work area you're in?
  - creshal 1y ago
    Yeah, the more boilerplate your code needs, the better AI works, and the more it saves you time by wasting less on boilerplate. AI tooling my experience: - React/similar webdev where I "need" 1000 lines of boilerplate to do what jquery did in half a line 10 years ago: Perfect - AbstractEnterpriseJavaFactorySingletonFactoryClassBuilder: Very helpful - Powershell monstrosities where I "need" 1000 lines of Verb-Nouning to do what bash does in three lines: If you feed it a template that makes it stop hallucinating nonexisting Verb-Nouners, perfect - Abstract algorithmic problems in any language: Eh, okay - All the `foo,err=…;if err…` boilerplate in Golang: Decent - Actually writing well-optimized business logic in any of those contexts: Forget about it Since I spend 95% of my time writing tight business logic, it's mostly useless.

asadm 1y ago

I think you and I are having very different experiences with these copilot/agents. So I have questions for you, how do you: - generate new modules/classes in your projects - integrate module A into module B or entire codebase A into codebase B? - get someones github project up and running on your machine, do you manually fiddle with cmakes and npms? - convert an idea or plan.md or a paper into working code? - Fix flakes, fix test<->code discrepancies or increase coverage etc If you do all this manually, why?

pnathan 1y ago
I'm pretty fast coding and know what I'm doing. My ideas are too complex for claude to just crap out. If I'm really tired I'll use claude to write tests. Mostly they aren't really good though. AI doesn't really help me code vs me doing it myself. AI is better doing other things...
- asadm 1y ago
  > AI is better doing other things... I agree. For me the other things are non-business logic, build details, duplicate/bootstrap code that isn't exciting.
stevenbedrick 1y ago
To do those things, I do the same thing I've been doing for the thirty years that I've been programming professionally: I spend the (typically modest) time it takes to learn to understand the code that I am integrating into my project well enough to know how to use it, and I use my brain to convert my ideas into code. Sometimes this requires me to learn new things (a new tool, a new library, etc.). There is usually typing involved, and sometimes a whiteboard or notebook. Usually it's not all that much effort to glance over some other project's documentation to figure out how to integrate it, and as to creating working code from an idea or plan... isn't that a big part of what "programming" is all about? I'm confused by the idea that suddenly we need machines to do that for us: at a practical level, that is literally what we do. And at a conceptual level, the process of trying to reify an idea into an actual working program is usually very valuable for iterating on one's plans, and identifying problems with one's mental model of whatever you're trying to write a program about (c.f. Naur's notions about theory building). As to why one should do this manually (as opposed to letting the magic surprise box take a stab at it for you), a few answers come to mind: 1. I'm professionally and personally accountable for the code I write and what it does, and so I want to make sure I actually understand what it's doing. I would hate to have to tell a colleague or customer "no, I don't know why it did $HORRIBLE_THING, and it's because I didn't actually write the program that I gave you, the AI did!" 2. At a practical level, #1 means that I need to be able to be confident that I know what's going on in my code and that I can fix it when it breaks. Fiddling with cmakes and npms is part of how I become confident that I understand what I'm building well enough to deal with the inevitable problems that will occur down the road. 3. Along similar lines, I need to be able to say that what I'm producing isn't violating somebody's IP, and to know where everything came from. 4. I'd rather spend my time making things work right the first time, than endlessly mess around trying to find the right incantation to explain to the magic box what I want it to do in sufficient detail. That seems like more work than just writing it myself. Now, I will certainly agree that there is a role for LLMs in coding: fancier auto-complete and refactoring tools are great, and I have also found Zed's inline LLM assistant mode helpful for very limited things (basically as a souped-up find and replace feature, though I should note that I've also seen it introduce spectacular and complicated-to-fix errors). But those are all about making me more efficient at interacting with code I've already written, not doing the main body of the work for me. So that's my $0.02!

senko 1y ago

Can't you just not use / disable AI and telemetry? It's not shoved in your face. I would prefer an off-by-default telemetry, but if there's a simple opt-out, that's fine?

throwawayxcmz 1y ago
You can't disable the culture.
- computerthings 1y ago
  [dead]
pnathan 1y ago
It's a question of the business model.

mootoday 1y ago

You can opt out of AI features in Zed [0]. [0] https://zed.dev/blog/disable-ai-features https://zed.dev/blog/disable-ai-features

inetknght 1y ago
Opt-out instead of opt-in is an anti-feature.
- gleenn 1y ago
  IIRC it was opt-in.
- echelon 1y ago
  You can leave LLM Q&A on the table if you like, but tab auto complete is a godlike power. I'm auto-completing crazy complex Rust match branches for record transformation. 30 lines of code, hitting dozens of fields and mutations, all with a single keystroke. And then it knows where my next edit will be. I've been programming for decades and I love this. It's easily a 30-50% efficiency gain when plumbing fields or refactoring.
  - typpilol 1y ago
    Honestly I find it useful for simple things like having to change something in a ton of columns you can't do with an easy find replace. Really is game changing
oneshtein 1y ago
How to opt-out of unrequested pop-ups and various helpers, or download and installation of binary files without permission?

insane_dreamer 1y ago

didn't Zed recently add a config option to disable all AI features?

agosta 1y ago

"Happy to see this". The folks over at Zed did all of the hard work of making the thing, try to make some money, and then someone just forks it to get rid of all of the things they need to put in to make it worth their time developing. I understand if you don't want to pay for Zed - but to celebrate someone making it harder for Zed to make money when you weren't paying them to begin with -"Happy to PLAN to pay for Zed"- is beyond.

eviks 1y ago
> I understand if you don't want to pay for Zed But he does say he does want to pay!
pnathan 1y ago
I pay for intellij. I pay for Obsidian. I would pay for zed. The only path forward I see for a classic VC investment is the AI drive. But I don't think the AI bit is valuable. A powerful plugin system would be sufficient to achieve LLM integration. So I don't think this is a worthwhile investment unless the product gets a LOT worse and becomes actively awful for users who aren't paying beaucoup bucks for AI tooling- the ROI will have to center the AI drive. It's not a move that will generate a good outcome for the average user.

coneonthefloor 1y ago

Well said, Zed could be great if they just stopped with the AI stuff and focused on text editing.

AceJohnny2 1y ago

> I can kick out some money to essentially "subscribe" for maintenance. People on HN and other geeky forums keep saying this, but the fact of the matter is that you're a minority and not enough people would do it to actually sustain a product/company like Zed.

ethanwillis 1y ago
It's a code editor so I think the geeky forums are relevant here. Also, this post is higher on HN than the post about raising capital from Sequoia where many of the comments are about how negatively they view the raising of capital from VC. The fact of the matter is that people want this and the inability of companies to monetize on that desire says nothing about whether the desire is large enough to "actually sustain" a product/company like Zed.

nsm 1y ago

Have you considered sublime text as the lightweight editor?

wahnfrieden 1y ago

“I tried the worst one”

DerArzt 1y ago

Just to echo the sentiment, I've had struggles trying to figure out how to use LLMs in my daily work. I've landed on using it as part of my code review process before asking someone to review my PR. I get a lot of the nice things that LLMs can give me (a second set of eyes, a somewhat consistent reviewer) but without the downsides (no waiting on the agent to finish writing code that may not work, costs me personally nothing in time and effort as my Org pays for the LLM, when it hallucinates I can easily ignore it).