| ▲ | nico 2 hours ago |
| This is awesome. At the same time I wonder if we are entering an era in which it’s just better to build your own tools Need a 3D modeler? Use Claude or codex to build the 3D model first, then build the modeler around it as you iterate towards what you want to build So many times I’ve had to spend hours learning a software, reading docs, doing tutorials, only to later be able to do a small basic idea of what I actually wanted to do in the first place Now I can just build only the software I need, for the thing I need it for (or, ala REA, maybe either modify or reverse engineer some existing software, to better fit my workflows) In that sense, it would also be cool to be able to drive KetchUp with an agent. I’m a big fan of what pen.dev has done (although now their tool is not free/open anymore) |
|
| ▲ | Aurornis an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| I have several personal tools I’ve built and maintained. It’s always more work than it looks. You can get to mostly usable tools quickly if your request isn’t too difficult, but every time I use them I run into another thing that needs to be fixed, changed, clarified, or cleaned up. It’s fun at first, but over time you realize you’re spending more time building the tools than using the tools to build the thing you originally wanted to work on. I think personal software is best for highly specific tools or for things you need to use repeatedly for a very long time. For something like a SketchUp competitor, I wouldn’t want to try to maintain my own. The number of edge cases and features is bigger than you imagine up front, and the vibecoded version that might appear a few hours after your prompt is going to be very far from the version you want to use. |
| |
| ▲ | altmanaltman an hour ago | parent [-] | | Isn't the whole argument that ai-driven code will reduce the time spent building because AI can do it now? And a SketchUp competitor by defintion will not be personal software just like SketchUp is not. | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I was talking about AI developed tooling. It’s amazing that you can get something usable quickly, but then every time you use the software you’re back in the AI working on your tool. Using AI to build the tool becomes the project, replacing the project that led you to think about vibecoding a tool. | |
| ▲ | vips7L an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | AI can’t do it. You still have to hold its hand. You still have to sit there and ask it to do things. There is no fire and forget. | | |
| ▲ | altmanaltman 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | For personal projects that don't matter? Sorry but that's your opinion at this point. I respect it but also fully disagree. Also even in that case, isn't it still reducing time and problems we have with pre-AI personal projects like maintainability and feature creep like you mentioned. | | |
| ▲ | vips7L 28 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It’s just my opinion that you have to ask the LLM to do things? Seems like reality to me tbh. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | heyzk 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I really appreciate this sentiment, and at the same time there are real opportunity costs to building and maintaining your own tools. Even in the era of tokens. I think it comes down to where you want to spend your time and attention. https://www.winestockwebdesign.com/Essays/Lisp_Curse.html |
| |
| ▲ | anonzzzies an hour ago | parent [-] | | I definitely find it easier to create the subset of blender that I need than learning blender, even if it is throwaway. | | |
| ▲ | 6 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | wilted-iris an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | To offer a counterpoint, I’m currently spending a lot of time on the other side of this: having my agent use blender in the background and build on top of it. My agent can drive it well and I’ve benefited from its import capability, renderers, layering, and simulation. I get a lot from blender, even though I don’t ever see its UI. | |
| ▲ | heyzk an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And a fantastic learning experience | |
| ▲ | t-writescode an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I ... really..? What sort of stuff are you wanting out of Blender? If it's 3d printing, you probably literally just need to do the soda can or donut tutorial - not even the whole donut tutorial. Like, I have to imagine that 80% of the "quick stuff" people need to do in Blender would be done with: * create quad
* exude like 5 times
* done Maaaybe * perform boolean operation between object and a circle or 3 --- Like, I have less than 200 hours in Blender and I was pretty functional after like ... 30 minutes to an hour of a single tutorial. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | baby 8 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Looking at CRM tools these days and they are so complicated that I’m thinking of just using my tool and add features as I need them. Would love to hear advice from people who use CRM tools on the job. |
|
| ▲ | bhouston 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > At the same time I wonder if we are entering an era in which it’s just better to build your own tools I wonder if Claude Code and other similar tools start to maintain their own base apps that everyone keeps asking for? This would be like a "cache" that makes the requests cheaper/easier to deliver? Then everyone's "own" apps is really just a customization layer on top of a solid base that already does all the heavy lifting. So many people are building their own versions of: - PDF editors - Word processors - 3D editors - Video editors - Pixel-based image editors - Vector-based image editors - CAD editors etc. In some of these there are a few flavors as well that are major architectural choices. But most of what people are doing is just playing around with UI and file formats. Much of the functionality is generally the same. |
| |
| ▲ | guhidalg 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sigh... are we really just going to re-invent plugins? | | |
| ▲ | bhouston an hour ago | parent [-] | | We do need a safe layer for non-engineers to customize apps. All these clones of Photoshop and similar tools are mostly dead ends, they are experiments to see if you can do it, but there will be a consolidation around regularly maintained and powerful and complete apps that likely also offer support. These experiments are dead-ends for the most part long-term. Fun play things, but they will not gain significantly user bases. | | |
| ▲ | t-writescode 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Isn't this more of an argument to use common OSS choices? Like, encourage people to use Blender for 3d modelling; LibreOffice for documents; Gimp, Krita, or one of the many other art programs for ... art; OBS for simple video stuff; and so on and so forth? |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | dyarosla an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I literally just had Claude build a 3D modeler slice of Blender that I wanted but that also works in VR [video: (https://www.reddit.com/r/aigamedev/s/q5Y6cskYb9)] I think the value of adapting full tools to your own workflow far outweighs the maintenance costs nowadays. The tool above for instance took my agent a couple hours and it was good to go. It wasn’t a small slice by any means either: it supports edit/obj mode, extrude, loop cuts, modifiers like subdiv, save/load, undo/redo, bones, auto rig, posing, and more. Mind you, this is a slice of an open source tool which was still outside of what I wanted from it. Cost wasn’t even part of the equation here. |
| |
| ▲ | nico 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Very cool. I’m in the process of creating a video game and building all the tooling around it, both for me and the players. And also, for doing things like recording a quick sequence of gameplay, “sandwiching” it with an intro/otro and posting to YouTube, then ingesting the engagement data to show on the internal player… still early days, not enough data to start optimizing on it, but I’m really enjoying building exactly what I want as I go along One of the tools (built for me to score options of different assets): https://id-le.com/review/intro-logo-animation Video: https://youtube.com/shorts/tlI9_XBuqVk Repo: https://github.com/nicobrenner/id-le Online: https://id-le.com/ | |
| ▲ | t-writescode 43 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's a pretty neat looking program. Since Blender is OSS, you could probably use one of the existing VR views for Blender and write a bunch of in-app Python scripts to do what you want, if you wanted to also be able to output to Blender files and work within Blender already. This looks like a pretty well-trodden area in Blender. | | |
| ▲ | dyarosla 30 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yes I could fiddle and adjust - But see, i dont want that. I want a modeler that works how i want, some things that work like Blender and others that work a different way. Adding scripts into an existing product does not serve this. I think we are entering into a new era where we don’t need to accept fully featured software with all of its decisions should they not fit ours. | | |
| ▲ | t-writescode 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You might be surprised just how much you can rewrite of Blender's UI if you want to. And you get battle-tested software and a huge collection of existing plugins, operational modes, export formats, all that. Fully bespoke software for everything you want is a way toward losing interoperability between people and platforms. | | |
| ▲ | dyarosla 4 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It doesnt have to be one or the other: you can have custom software that still works within existing/interoperable formats, as I’m doing here (im not planning to reinvent OBJ/FBX/BLEND) But building up as opposed to building down is freeing in that I can also pull in ideas from Houdini and mix them in. Not to mention BECAUSE Blender is OSS, i can also use it as reference for implementations of particular things should I need that too. IMO, this kind of full customization is going to become far more commonplace. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | wccrawford an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think that could be true once you're experienced enough to know what you want. Before that, though, I think you have to learn what the experts do and what can be done and what you should want. And then you can start to make your own opinions. By then, unless the major players have done it really wrong, you're not going to make something better than what already exists. Right now, it's different, because we have that experience prior to the ability to just wish up an app and have it happen. |
|
| ▲ | andsoitis an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Use Claude or codex to build the 3D model first, then build the modeler around it as you iterate towards what you want to build This is precisely what I'm doing. |
|
| ▲ | 0xb0565e486 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Skip the 3D modeler and have the agent do the operations directly instead. A good visualizer might be useful thought! If that part of the work needs to be validated. |