cobolcomesback

You do those things when you’re staying at a friend or family member’s place. But your friends and family aren’t charging you hundreds of dollars a night, plus a $250 cleaning fee.

It’s not just Airbnb the company that moved away from it, it’s the Airbnb hosts that moved away from it as soon as opportunists started becoming mega landlords renting out ikea-furnished party houses. It hasn’t been the original “person with a spare room for a weekend” Airbnb in a long, long time.

Those are all challenges that surely need to be overcome!

But they had _two months_ to figure out how to overcome them. For them to not have figured out a solution and have pre-built images ready to push as soon as the embargo lifted is ridiculous.

Nah, Chainguard should be praised for this. It was a different company that leaked the POC early, and then PHP, Wiz, OpenAI, and Calif sat on their hands doing nothing while the vuln was being actively exploited in the wild. Chainguard did the right thing by getting the fix out as quick as possible to stop the bleeding (or gushing flow of blood, really) rather than sitting on it so they could make a coordinated marketing post, like the others did.

GCP has some regions where all of the AZs are located in the same physical building. AFAIK they’ve stopped doing this in newer regions and have been migrating existing regions to have physically separate sites for each AZ.

AWS has always guaranteed that different AZs are physically separate sites, but that hasn’t always been the case with GCP.

AWS does not run “their control plane” out of us-east-1. Every single service has its own control plane independently hosted in its own region, with the exceptions of IAM, Route53, Cloudfront, and a small number of others like Global Accelerator.

IAM is usually the culprit when us-east-1 issues affect other regions, but Lambda runs independently in every region.

> Sure, and then tomorrow it's compaction, then worktrees, then an annoying buffer scrolling bug, image clipboard handling, etc etc. I don't buy for a minute that a one-liner prompt creates a perfect program because I know from experience it doesn't.

Every thing you listed works out of the box. Believe it or not, it’s true! And creating tools like this is only going to get easier as LLM models progress.

Your comment very much reminds me of comments from 2023 saying that LLMs would never be able to write working code, or be able to generate lifelike pictures, or be able to find security issues… but look around you, they’re doing all of those things already!

> I'm not sure I follow this line of thinking. Obviously, juggler is the result of an author who has spent a great deal amount of time thinking about an idea.

Awesome! That’s why I asked the author why they wanted attention. I want to hear more about those ideas behind juggler. What makes it special? Why does the author (who has tons of experience in software) think juggler is different? What were the obstacles that the author overcame while building it? That’s what I want to know, but these comments share none of that. Instead they just say “I also built a tool that does the same thing, I wish people would use my tool instead.” Why in the world would I?

I think you probably meant to write “underestimate”. But I think you are overestimating how difficult it is!

I’m not exaggerating when I say all I had to do was prompt “build me an LLM coding harness like Claude code, but make it so that I can resume sessions from OpenCode and Pi as well” and that’s it, and it was done within an hour.

Did it have warts? It’s been working nearly flawlessly, but there have been a couple of really minor things. One of the things I realized quickly was that it didn’t have a WebFetch tool built in, so I prompted “add a webfetch tool” and it did it within 5 minutes. Warts are trivially fixed.

The things that really differentiate software now are the ideas behind them, not the implementation. So if (like the OP) you’re looking at a tool and going “well mine does that too…”, so what? If it’s just a re-implementation of the same ideas, anyone can recreate it (and add on their own customizations to boot).

Personally, I am getting frustrated with the amount of people trying to pitch me their tool they made. Tools are a dime a dozen. Share with me your ideas, and I’ll share with you mine, but I’m not gonna adopt your tool.

Why do you want attention? Are you trying to sell this? Make money? Just want personal fame?

The reason there is so much noise in is area is because these tools are a dime a dozen and trivial to create with AI. I don’t think it realistic anymore to expect a rush of users and make money off of these. The supply is going to far outstrip the demand.

Last Saturday I asked Claude to create a Claude Code clone for me with a few customizations that I personally prefer. It did so in less than an hour, and works just as well as Claude Code. I’m not looking for attention on it - I’m happy I made it, and just myself as a user is gratification enough. I think this is the future of software development, and I think having expectations of attention from others just because you made another tool is setting yourself up for disappointment.

There are four different Pi plugins with the name “pi-mcp-adapter”, not including forks. Which one should they use for the fairest benchmark? And who should be the tie breaker when someone thinks they should use a different plugin? Now answer the same questions for all of the other plugins necessary for Pi to reach parity with Strands.

It’s like you didn’t even read my comment.

Base Pi doesn’t seem like an apt comparison here. Strands comes with MCP servers, subagents, and web fetch tools built in. To get those on Pi, you have to add addons, and then you get into the space of “which addons should be added to make it an apples-to-apples comparison? Which MCP addon do I use, the fastest one, or the most popular one?”. My guess is they chose OMP because it’s the defacto standard for answering those “which addons should be considered out of the box” questions for Pi.

The OP is not really a workflow manager, it’s a workspace manager that facilitates creating controlled environments where your skills can run. Everything you said is compatible with (and complementary of) the OP project.

With that said, I’ll somewhat disagree with you. I’ve been down the path you’re talking about and while it is incredibly flexible and powerful, it became too difficult to maintain, and too inconsistent between workflow runs, and a pretty hefty waste of tokens to use AI on things that could instead be handled by deterministic scripts. I ended up creating an orchestrator for myself that uses skills as the primary way to tell agents how to execute a step in a workflow, but also directly orchestrates running scripts and managing state in a deterministic way rather than leaving it all up to agents.