The happy path way of getting code out of Codex is a PR. This is emphatically not true for Cursor.

Feels like a sort of pollution.

Why? That is its intent - unlike an IDE, it is intended to work autonomously and only get back to you after it has prepared the full changeset - which at that point you'd review via a PR. Where's the pollution in that?

The hundreds of thousands of commits?

Commits are pollution? Are you concerned that we'll run out of SHA-1 digests?

Lmarena isn't that useful anymore lol

I actually agree with that, but it's generally better than other scores. Also, the quote is like a year old at this point.

In practice you have to evaluate the models yourself for any non-trivial task.

I quite liked this article, actually, and I'm quite an MCP stan. These all seem like legitimate problems that the burgeoning ecosystem needs to figure out. Some of them will be logically solved inside the MCP spec, but I also think some won't.

I mean, obviously you want to run the local CI in some isolated way. But it's not such a bad idea for many projects.

At PyTorch, we have the reverse problem, it's basically infeasible to run the CI locally, you really do need the cloud setup to cover all of the operating system / hardware configurations, and the parallelization in cloud also saves you loads of time.

No, in fact, codemcp can be thought of as a fancier version of the official filesystem MCP that Anthropic released. It's 100% MCP.

One thing I'll say, is that if I was going to make people pay API costs (like cline/claude code) I probably wouldn't actually make an MCP. The MCP box is pretty limiting, and I'm only willing to pay the cost because that's how I get onto flat pricing structure.

I definitely agree that for current models, the problem is finding where the LLM has comparative advantage. Usually it's something like (1) something boring, (2) something where you don't have any of the low level syntax or domain knowledge, or (3) you are on manager schedule and you need to delegate actual coding.

One problem with keeping the changes separate is the LLM usually wants to test the code with the incremental new changes. So you need a working tree that has all the new changes. But then... why not use the real one?

Plandex can tentatively apply the changes in order to execute commands (tests, builds, or whatever), then commit if they succeed or roll back if they fail.

So I have liked the Claude Pro style rate limiting over credits that refresh monthly but mostly because I only get snatches of 1-2 hours while I am on baby leave so I never actually get rate limited. As for learnings, I put a lot of them in my AI Blindspots blog, cuz I did most of codemcp's dev with LLMs

Do you think it should be possible to make some plugin for cline or roo code that would as a proxy between and Claude Pro and your mcp? This way we could avoid using Claude desktop and still code in IDE - i just find UI in Claude very fugly.

The thing is that, as many junior engineers can attest, randomly blundering around can still give you something useful! So you definitely can get value out of AI coding with the current generation of models.

I can't wait to see the future of randomly blundered tech as we continue to sideline educated, curious, and discerning human engineers from any salaried opportunity to apply their skills.

I've been working as a computer programmer professionally since I was 14 years old and in the two decades since I've been able to get paid work about ~50% of the time.

Pretty gnarly field to be in I must say. I rather wish I had studied to be a dentist. Then I might have some savings and clout to my name and would know I am helping to spread more smiles.

And for the cult of matrix math if >50% of people are dissatisfied with the state of the something, don't be surprised if a highly intelligent and powerful entity becoming aware of this fact engages in rapid upheaval.