I did, although a long time ago, so maybe I need to try it again. But it still seems to be stuck in a chat-like interface instead of something tailored to software development. Think IDE but better.

▲ vidarh 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

When I think "IDE but better", a Claude Code-like interface is increasingly what I want.

If you babysit every interaction, rather than reviewing a completed unit of work of some size, you're wasting your time second-guessing that the model won't "recover" from stupid mistakes. Sometimes that's right, but more often than not it corrects itself faster than you can.

And so it's far more effective to interact with it far more async, where the UI is more for figuring out what it did if something doesn't seem right, than for working live. I have Claude writing a game engine in another window right now, while writing this, and I have no interest in reviewing every little change, because I know the finished change will look nothing like the initial draft (it did just start the demo game right now, though, and it's getting there). So I review no smaller units of change than 30m-1h, often it will be hours, sometimes days, between each time I review the output, when working on something well specified.

▲ johanvts 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It has a new “watch files” mode where you can work interactively. You just code normally but can send commands to the llm via a special string. Its a great way if interacting with LLMs, if only they where much faster.

	▲	macNchz 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If you're interested in much faster LLM coding, GLM 4.6 on Cerebras is pretty mind blowing. It's not quite as smart as the latest Claude and Gemini, but it generates code so fast it's kind of comical if you're used to the other models. Good with Aider since you can keep it on a tighter leash than with a fully agentic tool.

▲ reachtarunhere 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If your goal is to edit code and not discuss it aider also supports a watch mode. You can keep adding comments about what you want it to do in a minimal format and it will make changes to the files and you can diff/revert them.

▲ zmmmmm 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think Aider is closest to what you want.

The chat interface is optimal to me because you often are asking questions and seeking guidance or proposals as you are making actual code changes. On reason I do like it is that its default mode of operation is to make a commit for each change it makes. So it is extremely clear what the AI did vs what you did vs what is a hodge podge of both.

As others have mentioned, you can integrate with your IDE through the watch mode. It's somewhat crude but still useful way. But I find myself more often than not just running Aider in a terminal under the code editor window and chatting with it about what's in the window.

▲ embedding-shape 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I think Aider is closest to what you want.

> The chat interface

Seems very much not, if it's still a chat interface :) Figuring out a chat UX is easy compared to something that was creating with letting LLM fill in some parts from the beginning. I guess I'm searching for something with a different paradigm than just "chat + $Something".

▲

zmmmmm 12 hours ago | parent [-]

the question is, how do you want to provide instructions for what the AI is to do? You might not like calling it "chat" but somehow you need to communicate that, right? With aider you can write a comment for a function and then instruct it to finish the function inline (see other comments). But unless you just want pure autocomplete based on it guessing things, you need to provide guidance to it somehow.

▲

embedding-shape 12 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't know exactly, but I guess in a more declarative manner rather than anything. Maybe we set goals/milestones/concrete objectives, or similar, rather than imperatively steer it, give it space to experiment yet make it very easy to understand exactly what important tradeoffs everything is doing.

It's all very fluffy and theoretical of course.

▲

xmcqdpt2 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think the problem is that models are just not that good yet. At least for my usage at work, the CLI tools are the fastest way to get something useful, but if you can't describe basically exactly what you want, you get garbage.

▲

zmmmmm 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I find a good compromise on that front is not to use the chat primarily, but to create files like 'ARCHITECTURE.md', 'REQUIREMENTS.md' and put information in there describing how the application works. Then you add those to the chat as context docs.From the chat interface then you are just referring to those not just describing features willy nilly. So the nice thing is you are building documentation for the application in a formal sense as part of instructing the LLM.

	▲	embedding-shape 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		But that is the typical agentic LLM coder style program I was initially referring to, saying we maybe should explore other alternatives to. It's too basic and primitive, with some imagination.

▲

mhast 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The typical "best practice" for these tools tend to be to ask it something like

"I want you to do feature X. Analyse the code for me and make suggestions how to implement this feature."

Then it will go off and work for a while and typically come back after a bit with some suggestions. Then iterate on those if needed and end with.

"Ok. Now take these decided upon ideas and create a plan for how to implement. And create new tests where appropriate."

Then it will go off and come back with a plan for what to do. And then you send it off with.

"Ok, start implementing."

So sure. You probably can work on this to make it easier to use than with a CLI chat. It would likely be less like an IDE and more like a planning tool you'd use with human colleagues though.

▲ troyvit 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Aider can be a chat interface and it's great for that but you can also use it from your editor by telling it to watch your files.[1]

So you'd write a function name and then tell it to flesh it out.

  function factorial(n) // Implement this. AI!

Becomes:

  function factorial(n) {
    if (n === 0 || n === 1) {
      return 1;
    } else {
      return n \* factorial(n - 1);
    }
  }

Last I looked Aider's maintainer has had to focus on other things recently, but aider-ce is a fantastic fork.

I'm really curious to try Mistral's vibe, but even though I'm a big fanboi I don't want to be tied to just one model. Aider lets tier your models such that your big, expensive model can do all the thinking and then stuff like code reviews can run through a smaller model. It's a pretty capable tool

Edit: Fix formatting

[1] https://aider.chat/docs/usage/watch.html

	▲	zmmmmm 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I don't want to be tied to just one model. Very much this for me - I really don't get why, given a new models are popping out every month from different providers, people are so happy to sink themselves into provider ecosystems when there are open source alternatives that work with any model. The main problem with Aider is it isn't agentic enough for a lot of people but to me that's a benefit.