mark_undoio

Speaking as a Brit, our national trait is generally too understate things. So even saying what you mean, directly, comes off as a bit immodest and hyping it up in sales pitches sounds shady.

Americans generally say what they mean a bit more, so I think their mid point is just different.

There was a quote somewhere about Mercurial having a mental model small enough you can fit in your head - and that was the big win for me.

It was also fast and had very clean, easy to contribute to code. I remember submitting a patch and getting a bit of Python education from Matt, which was very useful.

Git is fine but it's inconsistent enough in the interface department, even after all this time, that I still get regularly frustrated. On the other hand, you can't just break a workflow that already exists and I very much appreciate it scales to work far beyond mine.

I do like that the git people are doing the difficult work of improving the UI over time - it's hard to change the engines while the plane is flying!

I've recently been thinking how AI agents could affect this.

If you're lucky enough to be able to code significant amounts with a modern agent (someone's paying, your task is amenable to it, etc) then you may experience development shifting (further) from "type in the code" to "express the concepts". Maybe you still write some code - but not as much.

What does this look like for debugging / understanding? There's a potential outcome of "AI just solves all the bugs" but I think it's reasonable to imagine that AI will be a (preferably helpful!) partner to a human developer who needs to debug.

My best guess is:

* The entities you manage are "investigations" (mapping onto agents) * You interact primarily through some kind of rich chat (includes sensibly formatted code, data, etc) * The primary artefact(s) of this workflow are not code but something more like "clues" / "evidence".

Managing all the theories and snippets of evidence is already core to debugging the old fashioned way. I think having agents in the loop gives us an opportunity to make that explicit part of the process (and then be able to assign agents to follow up gaps in the evidence, or investigate them yourself or get someone else to...).

Whilst I have seen the Rabbit fittings others have mentioned I do remember mention of a "zone phone" and suspect we're recalling the same thing...

Very excited to see this come out - though coding agents are impressive their UIs are a bit of a mixed bag.

Textual offers incredibly impressive terminal experiences so I'm very much looking forward to this.

I wonder how much agentic magic it'll be able to include though - Claude Code often seems like a lot of its intelligence comes from the scaffolding, not just the LLM. I'm excited to see!

Acorn was doing stuff in Cambridge UK until more recently than I'd realised - it effectively incubated a load of talent that went on to find other companies. Famously ARM span out of it but many others also went on to do cool things - my current company was founded by Acorn people.

This demo was so cool. There were lots of alternative OSes out there back then that felt very impressive.

Linux at the time was cool too but less polished than now. Lots of people were on the Win 9x series, which wasn't amazing - and Mac OS X was not yet fully baked.

These other OSes (QNX, BeOS) felt polished, amazingly fast - and slightly alien. The main sad thing from my perspective was that I couldn't get them online (my machine had a winmodem and nobody had open source drivers for those for ages).

Encarta 95 had it - I remember thinking how cool it was that it looked like Win 95.

I'm pretty comfortable with the agent scaffolding just restricting directory access but I can see places it might not be enough...

If you were being really paranoid then I guess they could write a script in the local directory that then runs and accesses other parts of the filesystem.

I've not seen any evidence an agent would just do that randomly (though I suppose they are nondeterministic). In principle maybe a malicious or unlucky prompt found somewhere in the permitted directory could trigger it?

Amp (ampcode.com) uses Sonnet as its main model and has GPT o3 as a special purpose tool / subagent. It can call into that when it needs particularly advanced reasoning.

Interestingly I found that prompting it to ask the o3 submodel (which they call The Oracle) to check Sonnet's working on a debugging solution was helpful. Extra interesting to me was the fact that Sonnet appeared to do a better job once I'd prompted that (like chain of thought prompting, perhaps asking it to put forward an explanation to be checked actually triggered more effective thinking).

I've heard various online stories, over the years, about how nobody nails the ergonomics quite like Maltron does. Which is amazing given how long they've been about.

I have an old Maltron that I got cheap (many years ago and it was old then!) and it's remarkable how unlike a modern consumer product it was. Thin, vacuum formed plastic, point-to-point soldered wire keyboard matrix. But that classic shape, keys with full sized key caps and travel, etc are all present.

The Kinesis I also have is much more mainstream - it feels more solid and looks more like a consumer product. But I understand it's just not quite as good, ergonomically.

It's quite weird having local footpaths and paved roads that turn out to have been constructed by the Romans originally - around here that also applies to canals, drainage ditches, etc. It just blends into modern reality.

I imagine some of the Roman stuff was built on even older roads and channels.