pauleveritt

(JetBrainer here.) I get what you're saying, and thanks for supporting us.

I will say though: I hope we keep you and earn keeping you, because you are EXACTLY our bulls-eye. Folks who still believe in code and coding and still want to put their hands on the wheel sometimes.

(JetBrainer here.) When I give conference talks, I introduce JetBrains as: private (never taken VC), profitable, and European. We are indeed focused on being AI Realists, on the side of coders who still want to code.

JetBrainer here. I use OpenCode and Pi connected to local models and to stuff like hosted DeepSeek all the time. Once you have your model config set up in the agent, it works as expected.

JetBrainer here. Kind of my thoughts as well. When you think about the main problem -- human-in-the-loop -- the deterministic side has a lot to offer. But not always at the point of cursor-on-a-character.

Yes, as others replied, just plug in an agent with a model config pointed at OpenRouter. I do this all the time with OpenCode and Pi. Give me a reply if I can help you on this.

JetBrainer here. You're right about the Claude terms of use issue.

About compared with Codex, we have some tricks up our sleeve that are actually valuable for the target market we're going after: folks that want to understand and own what they've done. Watch for the videos we'll be doing (and look for my shining face in the PyCharm channel.)

On the last point...yes, the downside of choice is choice.

Hi, on this, I can promise (as a daily user) that our OpenCode and Pi support are really good. And with those, it's really easy to connect to LM Studio...in fact, I did this for the DeepLearning.AI course on hybrid/local models.

JetBrainer here. I can promise: not...private..equity. In my conference talks I like to brag that I get to work at the last independent: private, profitable, European. It's a cool gig.

The answer is more like the obvious one...our category is getting redefined, at hyper-speed, and all of the players are all over the map trying to sort this out.

I like what we're doing with JetBrains Air. We know what we bring to the table, who it's for, and we're doubling down on developers and development.

That said, CPU fan on Markdown is not cool. Want me to look through it with you?

JetBrainer here. For both this comment and the parent...I get you. It feels like the whole industry has gotten sucked into this vortex where people don't even look at code anymore.

I'm happy about our Air launch because we're being AI "realists"...neither too much sunshine pumping nor too much skeptic. We're doubling down on developers and development, both when you type and when you don't.

On to the point..I can promise the PyCharm is doing some pretty massive non-AI stuff on the deterministic side. I think determinism is the best path to trusting the code generated by the box.

JetBrainer here. About worktrees, I've seen the internal demos and we are making progress on that. It's actually an interesting problem, conceptually, about the index.

About the terminal, honest question...is that because you are looking at code less and less? Writing code less and less?

JetBrainer here. Thanks for the loyalty, and I do think as one of the last independents, we are worth cheering for. But it's up to us to earn double-clicking on the IDE icon.

After using Air in PyCharm, it's some good stuff. It's re-imagined for this hybrid world. But my question for you, honest question: do you think you still want to look at code? How about write code? If so, what are some things you'd do, if you were in charge of our IDEs?

JetBrainer here. I can attest that you are a primary target for Air for IDEs.

We have put a lot of thought into how we can add value for the workflow you just described. Here's the way I think about it: FSD for a car. Can you imagine trying to sell a car without a steering wheel? I still want to code, I still want the deterministic side, even in cases where I'm letting the machine do the work.

Hi, JetBrainer here with my two cents. You're right, there's a crop of folks barely opening their IDE, who don't really even want to look at code anymore, much less type any code.

But there's still a group that needs to own the result, who still read code and write code. Folks who still believe in developers and development. This group might not be loud in SV, but they are big out in the world.

I'm a Python advocate at JetBrains and our team runs into folks like this all the time.

I've been enjoying using Air inside the IDE as a way to get the acceleration without giving up coding. I get the speed side from the agent and the trust side from the deterministic IDE.

You should indeed feel vindicated. Me too, I've been a paid subscriber for months and eagerly read every word. <wink> But yes, I feel like this is the first of several vindications you have coming.

As an FYI, I'm with the template strings folks (new feature in 3.14) and we're building an HTML system around the idea of JSX-style components as callables, but with actual strings of HTML. Check our <a href="https://t-strings.github.io/tdom/usage/components.html">components page</a> for more detail.

With template strings, the symbols in the HTML string a just like Python code. Static analysis tooling can step in and do things.

We have ambitions to start an interoperability movement in Python HTML, so htpy and tdom could agree on a common Node structure.

Quick comment, our AI Chat now has Claude integration. Don't need the Anthropic plugin.

Thanks for the kind words, but really, I'm over-sung on this. It's been a long time since I impacted Python. I should be participating more. Hopefully t-strings is the place.

Guido said for many years (decades) that he wanted to get back to the parser.

As an example of t-strings helping SQL, Phil Jones published a package [1] that illustrates how it could work.

[1] https://github.com/pgjones/sql-tstring

Do t-strings miss something that f-strings provides for format_spec etc.?

FWIW, format_spec is available in the template structure, so the function writer could at least do a runtime check.

I'm one of the PEP authors and also with JetBrains. I'm talking to the PyCharm team about this.

We really should just point most of these comments at that PEP. Thanks for getting it out so fast.

Some prior art: https://pypi.org/project/tagged/

In fact, the repo of a companion project from the author has the ticket that spawned the work leading to t-strings: https://github.com/jviide/htm.py/issues/11

This is what we discussed in the first revision of the PEP (the use of `Annotated`.) But we found out: linters don't know anything about the Python type system.

We hope to get a community around all of this, stuff at PyCon US, EuroPython, etc. and work some of this out. The JSX/TSX world really has good tooling. We can provide that for those that want it, perhaps better on some aspects.

The PEP originally portrayed this as "for DSLs"

Thanks Nick for this response and all the time you've spent explaining. It's funny, I looked back at the comments on f-strings before they landed. They also got similar complaints about bloat. And yet, my uneducated guess: very popular.

The other PEP example shows generating HTML attributes from a passed-in dictionary. HTML has a number of places where this is helpful, if you have original data.

Nearly everything you just described is being worked on. It's amazing how accurately you have described it. We hope to demo and explain at PyCon US.

It was discussed in the first revision and discussion of the PEP. The decision was made to move that to follow-on work, as we discovered more about what tooling needs.

As an example, I was excited about using `Annotated` on the function to indicate the language it expected. Turns out, a lot of linters know nothing about the type system.

The original PEP and the original discussion had this in scope. We removed it to let this emerge later. There are different ways to signal the language -- some more friendly to tooling, some more robust.