JetBrains reports revenue growth, net financial loss for 2025

Wow, this really sucks. With all the money flocking to companies that trained LLMs on stolen data, we may lose the only set of IDEs that offer high quality professional development tools

• sebzim4500 · 1 day ago

  Their revenue is still going up so I don't think that's it.

• the__alchemist · 1 day ago

  I'm surprised that the word "only" still applies. I have my laments about JB (PyCharm / RR): Mainly centered around performance. Yet it has no competition! Whenever I read about VsCode, or Zed as alternatives, I feel disbelief, as they're not in the same league. Zed in particular, from the way it was described upon release, sounded like it should have been a JB competitor. Reality: It can't even move functions or structs!

  • gonzalohm · 1 day ago

    How is vscode not in the same league? JB feels way too bloated and slow and doesn't add anything significant over other offerings

    • ipsod · 1 day ago

      Code intelligence (find usages, go to definition, refactor/rename/move, etc.) and debugging are on another level - more powerful, more reliable, with more edge-cases covered. At least, that was so in dynamic languages, like Python, and PHP, last I checked.

    • gomoboo · 1 day ago

      It's not even close. vscode can approximate JB IDEs but that takes pulling in plugins on your own, managing their configuration, and adapting when the setup inevitably breaks. JB IDEs bake in everything you can get via vscode plugins with documentation, a cohesive experience, and regular maintenance to keep them working for you. Concrete examples that are better in JB land for me: git conflict resolution, refactoring (in numerous ways), jumping to definitions, finding usages (especially on Python projects).

      • ipsod · 23 hours ago

        > It's not even close. That's always been my experience. Not even close. One gives you legos that lets you make a plastic toy, and the other is an industrial machine shop for code. I thought maybe I was holding VSCode wrong, though.

        • the__alchemist · 23 hours ago

          > I thought maybe I was holding VSCode wrong, though. Likewise (Same with zed). I've given them a thorough try several times, assuming I was holding it wrong as you say based on conversations with others who use them effectively. I've reached the conclusion you say here each time.

        • gf000 · 21 hours ago

          One is a fancy code editor, the other is an IDE.

      • joquarky · 16 hours ago

        Yeah, every time I try to move from Webstorm to VS Code, I wind up going back because VS code is just too "generic". I don't want to spend a lot of time finding, installing, and configuring the right combination of plugins to bring VS Code up to Webstorm level. Also, I don't trust plugin/extension marketplaces anymore. There is lower exposure in having fewer dependencies.

    • matsemann · 1 day ago

      Maybe there exist better ways, but I'd say every coworker I've seen in a VScode variant uses freetext search to find everything.

    • memsom · 23 hours ago

      For dotnet, Rider runs rings around VSCode. Even using the Resharper plugin, VSCode is nowhere near the same functionality. I even use Rider above Visual Studio because it works way better for mobile and cross platform. VSCode runs okay on the same hardware as Rider, but it is all too manual to configure. VS2026 is a horrible bloated pig that constantly grinds to a halt on the same hardware.

      • Semaphor · 23 hours ago

        When have you tried VS last? Since they went multi core, it’s usually very fast and it’s mostly R# slowing it down (though I read that improved, dunno). I use Rider but need VS for some things.

        • memsom · 5 hours ago

          VS2026, "August 2026 feature update" is installed apparently. Even without Resharper, it is not as fast as Rider, and Rider build speeds up MAUI build and deploy by at least 50%

    • jayd16 · 23 hours ago

      What about debugging and stepping into a DLL (decompiling it)? Out of the box DotPeek vs whatever vscode plugin you can set up. But there's plenty of examples.

  • sebzim4500 · 1 day ago

    I think you are going to get a lot of pushback from people using e.g. typescript, for which VS Code is pretty good. For languages like kotlin, java and even python JB is still way ahead of the competition.

    • chrisandchris · 23 hours ago

      Pretty good is pretty bad for a tool I use most of my day.

    • speed_spread · 23 hours ago

      Considering that Kotlin is their own invention and that it exists mainly to schmooze people onto their platform I sure hope they're ahead with it!

      • BadBadJellyBean · 19 hours ago

        Kotlin is actually a pretty nice language, especially compared to Java. I love how they have null checking as a central feature.

        • speed_spread · 54 minutes ago

          IMO it's an overengineered sloppy mess. It adds too many bells and whistles without taking away anything. Nul checking is about the only serious feature it has. The rest is chrome and bling. It's "ricer" Java.

    • RunSet · 18 hours ago

      Reading Jetbrains' EULA makes me think it would be an easier read if they just listed the entities they would NOT share your data with. vscodium[0] might require some aftermarket bells and whistles to reach feature parity with jetbrains' "swiss army kitchen sink" approach but at least vscodium is not data-mining me. [0] https://github.com/VSCodium/vscodium

  • joshkel · 23 hours ago

    I love JetBrains. For many years I was a happy subscriber to the All Products Pack, paid for out of my own pocket. I would have said that you'd have to pry my JetBrains from my cold, dead hands. A year or two ago, I finally gave up: 1. The IDE was simply too slow - notably slower and "heavier" than VS Code in particular - and it seemed to regularly get slower. 2. Bugs - from the complex (TypeScript constructs that tsc itself handles just fine while WebStorm's code analysis kept throwing false positives on) to the trivial and silly (failing to properly handle the <col> tag in React), and often staying open for years. Meanwhile, VS Code just kept getting better, addressing the complaints I had with it while staying fast. I work almost exclusively in TypeScript these days; as other commenters pointed out, I'm sure that JetBrains products are still great for other languages. And their refactoring tools remain second to none. I'm profoundly disappointed in our industry that the VS Code developers apparently looked at JetBrains, with its arsenal of expertly crafted, deterministic, testable refactorings, and said, "Nope, we'd rather make everyone use inherently random language models for anything more complex than Rename Symbol."

    • theappsecguy · 21 hours ago

      They have made a fair bit of improvements, as performance was a big complaint. It's still not perfect, but VSCode also isn't nearly as powerful in my experience and needs a million plugins to match basic features.

    • lima · 18 hours ago

      I also gave up, after 10+ years of paying for it and even developing custom plugins. The remote dev story is bad, it won't play nice with Nix environments, and high DPI support on Linux kept breaking on every other update. I still miss the Git client sometimes, but Jujutsu has filled the gap.

• onlyrealcuzzo · 1 day ago

  Only? Microsoft's stuff is quite good, or you've got a really high bar.

  • caaqil · 1 day ago

    > Microsoft > quite good Good one.

    • pluc · 1 day ago

      Happy to hate on MS as much as the next guy but VSCode is pretty much the Chrome of the IDE world at this point, that might be what parent was alluding to (since I'd struggle to defend any other Microsoft software).

      • Sharlin · 1 day ago

        VSCode is not an IDE. It's a text editor with some optional bells and whistles. I presume the GP refers to the actual Visual Studio.

        • taspeotis · 1 day ago

          Visual Studio is less shit than ever, but only after JetBrains gave MS a firm kick up the ass with Rider.

        • folkrav · 23 hours ago

          It's got an editor, a debugger, code intelligence, a debugger, terminal, task running, test explorer, refactoring tools, project management, and so on. What's an IDE if not a text editor with bells and whistles?

          • Matl · 19 hours ago

            It's got each, but they're holding together with duct tape.

      • szatkus · 23 hours ago

        It's really not an option in Javaland.

    • onlyrealcuzzo · 1 day ago

      It's almost as if a company can have good and bad products... Microsoft has had a very long reputation (for good reason) for having good developer tooling, even if Windows was not particularly developer friendly...

  • Sharlin · 1 day ago

    Mostly constrained to a single ecosystem and dev/deployment platform - a platform that has never been particularly great for development and has been made vastly less so in the recent years.

• pjmlp · 23 hours ago

  Visual Studio, RAD Studio, Eclipse, Netbeans, XCode, QtCreator, KDevelop are still around and good enough for most workflows.

  • cosmic_cheese · 22 hours ago

    There are even areas in which some of those best IntelliJ IDEs. One such thing that Xcode has that IntelliJ doesn’t is per-pane history. In Xcode hitting back/forward navigates history for your focused editor pane whereas IntelliJ’s navigates history across all editor panes . This might sound like a minor difference, but Xcode’s way gets me to where I want to go more quickly most of the time because I’m not having to wade through the likely-irrelevant history of the other panes. It’s a frequent frustration whenever I have to use an IntelliJ IDE.

    • pjmlp · 21 hours ago

      Another example, it took several years for JetBrains to add mixed language JNI debugging in IntelliJ, between Java and C, C++. Something that Eclipse and Netbeans were already doing in 2005.

    • jayd16 · 21 hours ago

      Seems weird. If it's irrelevant then why were you just there? Jumping through a stack of functions across classes and back seems like the most common case to me. I'm glad you like it but I would hate that.

      • cosmic_cheese · 21 hours ago

        I tend to split panes by functional role, so for example in one pane I might be jumping through view code while in the other I might be working with view models. It’s not helpful to bounce me up and down the editing history of the view model file to the right when the intention is to quickly jump though view file history on the left (or vice versa). The best thing to do would be to make it a checkbox, like IntelliJ does for almost everything else, but not that for some reason.

• marginalia_nu · 22 hours ago

  Just feels like they've been making all the wrong decisions. Quality has been really lackluster, and their attempts to hop onto the AI train have been as annoying as they have been bad. CoPilot sucked. Their own AI coding models suck. The redesign they've gone for also seems like a supremely weird choice. It's like they're trying to be more like VS Code, when their probably biggest selling point was that unlike VS Code, they offered a full and traditional IDE experience. Their trajectory has been a deeply questionable mix of change for the sake of change and nervously doing what everyone else is doing.

  • kingleopold · 20 hours ago

    I bet they thought any AI could never deliver what we have today this fast.

• dukeyukey · 22 hours ago

  Their revenue is up, why is them investing more a bad thing?

• deadbabe · 21 hours ago

  What do you mean, we still have neovim

• railka · 24 minutes ago

  Check out Zed IDE - it's exactly what JetBrains Fleet should've been. Native, fast, and built for "code by hand", but also with some AI features.

Engineers abandoning IDEs or did they burn a ton of cash on AI?

• 1899-12-30 · 1 day ago

  given that their revenue is still increasing, I'm guessing it's the latter

  • onionisafruit · 1 day ago

    Their revenue is increasing, but their profits have been on a decline despite increased revenue. The table on that page only goes back to 2021, but the trend of increasing revenue and decreasing profits has been going on at least that long. I don’t think ai would have been a factor that far back. Even though github copilot did launch sometime around then, I doubt it was much of a factor.

• patadura · 1 day ago

  Like or not, LLM are getting better at debugging than humans... Not sure for how long will companies will keep paying for IDEs (which, tbf, are peanuts compared to the LLM cost).

• ThatPlayer · 1 day ago

  Why not both? If engineers are abandoning IDEs then shouldn't they be following the engineers?

• mrweasel · 1 day ago

  What stands out to me is https://www.helgilibrary.com/companies/jetbrains/total-cash-... I have no idea what that contains, but it appears to be a rather large dip, compared to previous years. Overall it's not really that interesting without context and commentary from JetBrains.

• SkyPuncher · 1 day ago

  I have paid out of pocket for Jetbrains for 15 years. I don’t think I’ve opened it in the past year and should probably cancel my subscription. For me, the things that made Jebteains great just don’t matter anymore.

  • kugelblitz · 1 day ago

    What do you use then? I still use it a lot for reviewing the code.

    • KptMarchewa · 1 day ago

      It is a good code viewer but way too heavy if you want to switch between branches often on a sufficiently large product.

    • cbg0 · 23 hours ago

      You'll be surprised (or not) to find out a lot of people aren't using anything. Claude gets asked to build it, then some other clown uses their copy of Claude to do the PR review and then it gets merged.

    • SkyPuncher · 23 hours ago

      VSCode for the rare time I need to view a file. GitHub or Tuicr for code review. Still waiting for an agentic first review environment- which Jetbrains has missed the ball on.

• vachina · 1 day ago

  The truth is there is no money to be made from (good) offline software.

• InsideOutSanta · 1 day ago

  I find IntelliJ IDEA a great tool, even for my fully vibecoded apps. I edit the READMEs in it, look at the version history, use it for debugging, for builds, and so on. My guess is that people aren't abandoning their IDEs. Their market is probably growing. I suspect they're burning money on subsidized inference, just like everybody else.

• romanovcode · 23 hours ago

  Both

• nozzlegear · 17 hours ago

  I canceled my DotNet Ultimate subscription (or whatever it's called) earlier this year, even though Rider is (was) one of the best IDEs for my main squeeze, F#. It's not because I don't use Rider or IDEs, but because I've felt the quality has gone downhill ever since I first started paying for it. What broke the camel's back was the constant surveys they were sending me surveys asking how much I love AI in Rider, and how much I wanted to see more AI in their IDEs, when all I wanted was an IDE that didn't have some shitty new F# language bug every time I updated it. Ironically, I finally got around to using AI to configure my Neovim setup with a decent F# and C# experience. I don't have it set up with a debugger yet, but at least I'm not paying hundreds of dollars every year for a company to neglect the thing I paid for.

Software is changing. It would be a good time to invest rather than to focus on the bottom line. Their revenue is up. I’m not surprised.

they're finished

• bdavbdav · 1 day ago

  Why? Revenue still up. Investment.

I don't think they can compete with AI IDEs. They should maybe focus on the niche that they are good at, and completely get rid of anything ML/AI related. It's going to be a lot cheaper. It's better to be the king of a niche.

• maxdo · 1 day ago

  like what , manually refactor code in hours, when agent can do it for you in minutes, or setting up debug/dev env when agent can also do that for you?

  • Applejinx · 23 hours ago

    Manually refactor code in days if need be, when you have something specific in mind and intend a particular result. 'refactor' isn't just a blender. If I wanted agentic coding I would just do that. I'm quite happy for other people to so completely entangle themselves in agentic coding that they can't get out. Please proceed. to add: I'm a paying JetBrains customer, but they could lose me if they vibecode themselves into a pile of slop. I'm not sure they're doing that, even if they're dabbling in it. I think there's still expertise there.

• Theodores · 1 day ago

  This would make sense for me, as a long time Jetbrains user and not desiring to use AI for anything apart from single line code completion, which the current Jetbrains tools do quite well. I have used their support before, to be extremely impressed. This is an area that they could differentiate themselves in.

• rfgplk · 23 hours ago

  They could establish a foothold in AI accelerated development but they sadly aren't doing it, instead focusing on "developing agents" (aka openclaw/pi/codex/claude simulacrum #9998).

• eunos · 23 hours ago

  > They should maybe focus on the niche that they are good aT Ironically, back then they praised JetBrains for not following hype staying focused on IDE and Dev environment

IDEs are on a steep decline, so not so surprising. I've disabled most code extensions from vscode and find myself using multiple terminals and the built in git diff UI. I barely see the code _as a whole_, only care about the _code_ changes. edit: added the extra words + I must mention I'm talking about legacy maintenance projects

All the death knell comments - Is no one looking at the revenue line? Revenue still trending the same. Costs presumably haven't skyrocketed. They've invested in something big. Thats probably a good thing, and often needed to evolve.

• snarfy · 1 day ago

  probably ai related

• jeroenhd · 1 day ago

  Jetbrains has been pushing Junie real hard, my guess is that they've been giving out too many cheap tokens to try to stay relevant as Claude and friends pull people away from the IDE.

  • ipsod · 1 day ago

    Has anyone had a good experience with Junie, to share? I've tried it, and it seemed fine, but not compelling enough to even spend the free usage I get with my All Products Pack.

    • jeroenhd · 1 day ago

      Worked fine as a free tool, but as long as AI companies are selling their slopware tokens below cost with subscriptions, it's not really that interesting in my opinion. The Jetbrains integration is nice, but if you rely on the tool you're probably not going to use the IDE much anyway.

    • matsemann · 1 day ago

      It felt quite competitive about a year ago. But haven't tried it since, no idea how it has held up with the other advancing. What I liked was the tight integration with the IDE. I don't particularly like the way I work with Claude now, still wanting to check the changes, navigate code, ask questions, write some code myself etc. Feel claude mostly is for the "bigger" changes. Sometimes I just want to select some text and refactor it, or ask a stupid simple question without the "chat".

    • Blackthorn · 1 day ago

      Not personally but Junie was what made the fellow developer I respect most in the world actually start taking notice of LLMs as something useful instead of bad.

    • PaulHoule · 1 day ago

      I enjoyed it a lot early on. In particular it didn’t have all the confusing and anxiety inducing options that other agents have to use more expensive or less expensive models, I liked the way it approached “plan mode” [1] and I didn’t feel like I had to stress it about token costs the way I do with the other models…. Jetbrains now gives me a choice of agents which I don’t like because having to think about it makes feel like one of those “ai bros” who is overthinking their relationship to ai and underthinking their code. I would like to see one more ide-integrated, like I think running commands like ‘grep’ with the shell is really for the birds (creates a risk that some other command line might be run, the wrong files might be accessed, all that) and rather there should be a specialized toolbox. [1] … I reject vibe coding. Token costs be damned but I always like to have a talk before it starts like “I think…, maybe you should…, does this make sense?, do you have any questions for me before you start?” and later “what are you doing in the code in the selection?”

    • poncho_romero · 23 hours ago

      I think Junie is comparable to something like Claude Code or Codex, but moving a little slower feature wise. It's perfectly adequate for developers who want to use AI but don't want to keep up with the bleeding edge of tooling.

    • surgical_fire · 23 hours ago

      I used it for a bit. It is alright to get an LLM review on code I write myself, but getting extra tokens is expensive , and it was not clear if I could configure it to use one of the API keys I have from GLM, MiMo, etc. I tried Air as well. It was alright, but I found it a bit more cumbersome to use then Pi. I tried configuring Pi to be accessed though ACP, but it felt like going through a hoop to have a worse experience. Then again, I am not someone that manages multiple agents in parallel, at most I have one agent implementing something in a different repository while I am doing my own things. Air could maybe be useful for me if I could plug in the LLMs I actually use directly, it is too tied to ChatGPT, Claude, etc.

    • chrisandchris · 23 hours ago

      I use it daily, but I'm also the AI consumer that is looking for something like a hammer and a saw (it's clear what their job are and they're doing their job fine). I'm absolutelty not looking for the next-gen-stuff, so I avoid Codex/Claude/... Junie is boring, and that's perfect (for me).

    • bdcravens · 23 hours ago

      I tried it in DataGrip on a messy database. It hallucinated about which tables and columns to use. Had better results using Claude in the terminal and having it give me the SQL to run.

  • jermaustin1 · 23 hours ago

    In everyone's day jobs where they used an IDE 5 years ago, or even a year ago, are those jobs abandoning the IDE? I still use Visual Studio in my day job, where Claude's output while VERY helpful, requires my ownership of everything, meaning I am inspecting every single line it changes. If a change is bigger than I think it should, I kill it before I commit. I know I don't HAVE to use an IDE for that, but if the change is small enough, I am faster than asking Claude to understand the subtext behind my personal context of the product, and the IDE is supremely helpful for making a quick change across a handful of files.

    • kuekacang · 23 hours ago

      Can't seem to beat vscode in over-ssh editing. Using IDEA it requires ~2GB transfer (local download plus ssh transfer) which is quite significant. > ...inspecting... I got used to sublime merge to context-switch editing vs reviewing, staging changes line-by-line

      • dranudin · 21 hours ago

        Yes that is a real problem at work. A lot of stuff is done in containers or virtual devices and jetbrains remote developping workflow takes too much time due to this transfer. VsCode is much faster there.

    • Gareth321 · 23 hours ago

      > meaning I am inspecting every single line it changes. I think this is changing fast. Pressure is increasing on devs for output, and most devs I know are no longer inspecting lines. I have devs in my business unit who claim to not have looked at code for months, except on certain rare occasions. I am not a developer and this week I've been given access to the repo to build my own apps and extensions. There's a "review" between commit and deploy, but there's no chance the Tech Lead can manually review everything, so that's getting done by AI too. I know this horrifies a lot of devs, but these tools are shockingly good and we are not seeing an increase in bugs. In fact our automated detections (also AI assisted) are reducing the number of customer reported critical bugs. I really think the days of inspecting every line are over.

      • treis · 23 hours ago

        It's an interesting philosophic question. LLMs tend to be overly verbose and defensive in coding. It's not a ton of extra complexity but it makes the code harder to follow for a human. But if a human is not writing the code how much does that matter? I agree that they have gotten shockingly good. It's been a long time since I've seen them do something that is objectively wrong. Once we get closer to the "too cheap to meter" cost level things will change radically again.

        • JambalayaJimbo · 22 hours ago

          Have you ever tried to use an LLM to add a feature to a really nice, pre 2023 codebase? It’s incredible how much easier it is to do, how much of a difference you instantly feel

          • treis · 18 hours ago

            I don't think I've ever had a job with a nice code base

        • rustystump · 20 hours ago

          But it IS a ton of complexity and blows out context windows. Less code good. More code bad. Both for human and agent. Somehow, still only human can make code less.

        • fg137 · 20 hours ago

          > It's not a ton of extra complexity but it makes the code harder to follow for a human. It is. I have seen Claude chasing after endless amount of edge cases that are just irrelevant in real usage especially for the kind of users we are supporting. At some point you need to stop reasoning about all those cases because it has zero benefit.

      • narsonika · 22 hours ago

        This type of codebases will become a goldmine for cybersec in the near future. Except by then, only few people will be able to detect them or fix them. LLMs will leave the hardest problems and most difficult bugs plus and plethora of devs who either have skill atrophy or haven't learn these things in the first place.

        • NewsaHackO · 17 hours ago

          Actually, cybersecurity seems to be the area that LLMs shine the most at; though it needs directing to actually look for the problem, LLMs have been able to find security faults in code that is well-vetted and written by experts.

        • Gareth321 · 5 hours ago

          I don’t think this is accurate. Our AI testing is finding exploits we’ve had in our codebase for 15 years. No human ever detected it. No deterministic tests. Our apps are getting more secure, not less.

      • rustystump · 21 hours ago

        Yes and….no. I have seen this play out at a large corp to spectacularly awful results. Talking 60k line react nextjs apps where every use effect has a linter silenced because the ai gave up on writing correct react code. I have seen millions wasted because someone trusted an ai scripts calculation of a metric from the bottom of the org that led the top of the org to make a wrong decision only to laugh about ai. There is value but ffs read the god damn code. You can have the cake and eat it too. If the volume of code is so large you cannot read it, maybe it isnt worth shipping? Or are you one of the ones pushing the real code reading on to others which seems to be common. Yes i can have agents vibe out 10 features and have my coworkers suffer fixing it in reviews. What IS useful are the AI reviews. They catch bugs, not all are bugs but they do catch some. It is almost like they are better at finding logical issues across millions of tokens but not good at writing streamlined logic. The number of times ai gives me a 800 line dif only to replace it with a 5 line dif after i read it and notice it grossly overcomplicated the ask and scoped in a bunch of nonsense from training data.

    • chris_st · 23 hours ago

      I had personal subscriptions to WebStorm and GoLand and cancelled them not long after getting Windsurf. Just don't need the IDE abilities like I used to... Still use 'go to definition' but that's pretty much it.

    • jeroenhd · 23 hours ago

      Junie's features are geared very much towards the more vibecoding side of things. Jetbrains even produced a vibecodin IDE.

    • ApolloFortyNine · 23 hours ago

      IMO what's being called an 'Agent Development Environment' solves this issue for you. I like Orca but there's a few dozen of them. Basically they give you a way to view the code the llm has generated/changed easily, annotate that code for the llm, and manage multiple agents and at once.

      • gf000 · 21 hours ago

        This has been integrated into intellin in the form of jetbrains air, so they may also decided that's the direction?

      • dugmartin · 20 hours ago

        And with LLMs you can just create your own pretty easily that matches your exact workflow and integrates with all your tools. I've gone through a few iterations, first using the Unix small tools that talk to each other philosophy, then a single TUI app running in a pane next to my agent cli and now a Go server that has a cli and web ui with xterm embedded terminals and has its own chat sidebar in the web ui that can use tools and interact with running sessions in terminals. I'll probably have something new in 6 months.

    • aurareturn · 23 hours ago

      I can go for a week or two without opening my IDE. Unheard of just a year ago.

    • chasd00 · 22 hours ago

      I'm beginning to abandon the IDE (vscode in my case). I've always been very comfortable with (or at least not scared of) the command line so the Claude app with a terminal pane open is handling much of my IDE use cases. What I really need to do is get better at using find, grep, and other search tools from the terminal and then create a good .vimrc for editing and i'm set. heh what's old is new again! > I am inspecting every single line it changes. Honestly, when I'm looking at ClaudeCode's output 75% of time i'm doing it to learn and understand and not just check for correctness. I'm confident enough to admit I don't know everything and I've learned a lot from reading Claude's code.

    • jvidalv · 21 hours ago

      I have completely stopped using Jetbrains products since 6 months ago. Like all, not gonna even renew my subscription. Heavy user of WebStorm and Datagrip since at least 2019.

      • jayd16 · 21 hours ago

        How is an LLM replacing Datagrip?

    • ninininino · 21 hours ago

      Yes. Github draft PRs for giving inline feedback to agents, then going back to chat window with agents in Cursor, Claude, Codex, etc. to say 'review my comments and address them'.

  • jhanschoo · 12 hours ago

    Giving away tokens just reduces their revenue line, while increasing operational costs. Both these accounts look stable. The anomaly is the cash flow of investing activities, which is not something you can put such activity as you have described under.

• mjr00 · 1 day ago

  Yeah look at the details below. Revenue is up 6% (which is not amazing but still growth). But staff expenses are up 34.2%. And the real big hint is "Cash Flow From Investing" plunging from -83 million $USD to -469. That's massive. They're staffing up and investing in... something .

  • usrusr · 1 day ago

    > and investing in... something. Reads like aimlessly burning whatever they felt they were able to burn without existential risk on some "also ran" LLM sinkhole. In other words: nothing to see here, same as everybody else.

    • echelon · 1 day ago

      > without existential risk To do nothing is to die. I've been a JetBrains subscriber for over a decade. Nobody is going to use their tools in five years. I certainly don't need my subscription anymore. > on some "also ran" LLM sinkhole. They can't do Junie. It's a dead end. They can't do the same thing everyone else is doing either, or they're exactly as you put it: an "also ran" in a very crowded field. The only way for JetBrains to survive is to figure out their Garmin play. They either find some niche within the existing product or - maybe (and very improbably) - they can innovate something wild nobody else has figured out yet that provides a path to new fertile pasture. But that's more the startup path than the thriving incumbent facing innovator's dilemma path. But no matter what, if they stay the course, they're dead. Just like half the people expecting to still be writing code by hand.

      • watwut · 23 hours ago

        > Just like half the people expecting to still be writing code by hand. I know this is not your main point, but common. If this is true, AI would be the first tech impossible to learn 5 years after it appeared.

        • RobotCaleb · 22 hours ago

          Common? Did you mean come on?

        • selectodude · 20 hours ago

          I look at it as like being able to start a fire in the woods without a lighter. It’s a skill, a helpful one even on the extremely rare occasions that it’s necessary. But realistically with even the bare minimum amount of prep, not a useful one. How many people out there can do hand lithography to make an 8086 to bootstrap computing? One?

          • FranOntanaya · 17 hours ago

            If you have a deadline for starting a fire you won't be happy looking at an unskilled person holding a lighter under a bunch of wet twigs.

          • watwut · 3 hours ago

            > How many people out there can do hand lithography to make an 8086 to bootstrap computing? One? What does THAT have to do with whether people who dont use AI today will die soon? What does "hand lithography" have to do with literally anything here?

      • sporedro · 23 hours ago

        I love their tools and am keeping my subscription for now, but would have to agree. VSCode has been eating at their users for years now. Jetbrains tools still were much better in my opinion but they are competing with “free” and “good enough”. With AI getting better, the main advantages of Jetbrains are gone. I don’t need a massive IDE anymore. I still need an editor, but there’s hundreds of better tools for quick edits than a massive IDE. It’s a company at the end of the day, but I hope they find a niche or pull a Garmin play like you said, otherwise I don’t see them being relevant.

      • mschuster91 · 23 hours ago

        > Nobody is going to use their tools in five years. What will replace it? The dumpster fire called Eclipse, certainly not. The even larger dumpster fire that is Electron based VS Code, also not. And "vibe coding", "agentic AI" etc. will also be a thing of the past once the VC money spigot selling tokens for far below actual cost dries up. The JetBrains portfolio is here to stay. (One might even see a total ban for American products in the EU or a significant push in sovereign technology on the horizon, and JB stands to profit from both options!)

        • mort96 · 23 hours ago

          I'm not a fan of VS Code myself, but everyone I know uses it (except for people I myself have influenced into using something else). It truly is a sort of default editor these days.

          • stevekemp · 22 hours ago

            I guess it depends on your niche; I spend half my time coding Golang and Python, and the other half terraform, ansible, perl and I use other languages now and again for small projects and utilities. In the devops/sysadmin world my stack would be common, and mostly people pick an editor and stick to it. I've been using Emacs for the past 20+ years at this point, and the last time I used Microsoft's IDE was back in the day when I was writing desktop apps using MFC (which probably dates me pretty well!) with visual studio. I've seen colleagues use anything from atom, vim, emacs, notepad++, and other generic editors whos name I didn't recognize. There are one or two instances of VS Code I see now and again, but they're the outlier rather than the norm in my professional life.

          • dyzone · 21 hours ago

            It's vim vs emacs of this generation. Vscode is vim and intellij is emacs I guess. It does everything.

      • Oras · 23 hours ago

        > They either find some niche within the existing product They should stay in where they started, dev experience and IDEs custom for each language. Entering the AI coding was a mistake in my opinion, I’m sure one can argue that AI coding would have better tooling without their IDEs, but AI coders (Cc and codex) don’t use IDEs anymore so it’s a lost battle before the start

        • rolosa · 23 hours ago

          I remember around 2019 or so they shipped their first AI feature and there was a huge backlash for it. Did that change their direction in anyway? Obviously 2026 is a way different landscape than back then.

        • mike_hearn · 3 hours ago

          You could argue that Claude Code and Codex are a sort of IDE, just a very different one to what came before. But they are environments for coding.

      • noodletheworld · 23 hours ago

        > I certainly don't need my subscription anymore Sure. I still use mine though; privately and at work. > Nobody is going to use their tools in five years. > they're dead. Just like half the people expecting to still be writing code by hand. Hyperbole much. Leave it on LinkedIn man. Who knows? 5 years is a long time. They're trying to navigate the AI era just like everyone else. You know what we got told at work? “Scrappy AI startups are snapping at our heels, we need to move fast so the competition doesn't over take us” …but if you ask: what startups? Silence. If you ask, why are we scared of some teenager vibe coding a platform and stealing our customers? Silence. Dont question the narrative. Of course AI is an existential threat. Of course there are vibed startups trying to eat our market. Have you not seen our share price? Such hyperbolic BS. Ffs. Calm down.

      • tetraodonpuffer · 23 hours ago

        I disagree on to do nothing is also to die, I'd love to continue paying if they prioritized bugfixing, speed, remote/container editing and having an open AI ecosystem, as well as supporting any new language features without degenerating into an "always online" editor like vs.code. I could not care less about "new paradigm" editors, UI reworks and AI lock-in offerings, the only AI I want is let me bring my own local model, or interface with claude / codex / ...

      • jbvlkt · 23 hours ago

        I think they are trying new things even with "nobody writes code anymore" in mind. Their IDEs are now MCP servers for agents to reason about the code. Imagine your agent will stop wasting tokens using grep to find symbol usages if he can just ask IDE where it is used. They are not the best option for vibecoders right now but who knows what will happen in 1 year. Integration with other developer tools, code reviews etc. are better than ever. Ideavim is probably the best vim plugin and it gets new features every month. They are also investing a lot in the AI. I would bet they will survive just fine unless we would write software in slack only using emoji :-)

        • Semaphor · 23 hours ago

          And their MCP servers and tools are great! But I wish they’d remember that some of us also actually code in the IDE, because human usage quality of their IDEs has been getting worse in that time…

          • jbvlkt · 20 hours ago

            You are right, they fix even most annoying bugs really slowly. I also remember something like 2 years ago when they made pycharm unusable with poetry for several months and the release was like 18th of December (who decided to release tool for work as Christmas gift :-D ). The good thing is that you can always revert to older version and wait for proper fix.

        • microtonal · 23 hours ago

          Imagine your agent will stop wasting tokens using grep to find symbol usages if he can just ask IDE where it is used. They are not the best option for vibecoders right now but who knows what will happen in 1 year. Can't agents just use a language server? There are already a bunch of projects that provide this, e.g.: https://www.agent-lsp.com/ Doesn't seem like a huge differentiator anymore? I don't really know much about their current users, but from a business perspective, post-tokenmaxxing and them having an IDE, it seems like the most efficient environment for having a human in the loop is something they could tackle?

          • ffaccount2 · 23 hours ago

            Well nobody needs to use IDE. There were always people who used vim with tmux as their IDE. The value of IDE is the I as in integrated - I see some value in having easy to manage single dev environment with batteries included. (I'm not an IDE guy though, and I personally closer to vim/vscode + plugins)

            • microtonal · 22 hours ago

              There were always people who used vim with tmux as their IDE. But until language servers, IDEs with built-in code analysis had a huge advantage. This stopped once LSP was designed and some language servers got mature. LSP was developed originally by VS Code and it is easy to see why - it allowed VS Code to compete with IDEs without writing their own code analysis by letting language developers write a standard server. This made VS Code (and others like Zed) so powerful, that they had already replaced IDEs for many users (maybe outside Java). LLMs are just another nail in the coffin.

              • jbvlkt · 21 hours ago

                This is not the whole picture. IDE is not just for writing code. What I really like on jetbrains is how strong the platform is. I will show you example which would be great if they implement it. If you use ideavim you can enable feature which shows you action ID you have currently triggered (Ideavim: Track action IDs). If you click on anything it will show you name of that action and you can setup vim shortcut for that. This way, you can use almost anything by just typing a few letters. But that is just a start. Now imagine you can use this to create "macro" which will create something like skill for LLM. So in a few seconds to minutes you can create "skills"/runbooks for major refactorings, project updates, git bisections, project deployments, log analysis or whatever you can think of. You will just click on 20 features and it will record what you did with some additional context (files, connected services, build systems etc.). This is the strength of integrated tools. Of course this is just my imagination but I am not the smartest person in the world and I am pretty sure/hope that someone in jetbrains or in other IDE company is thinking this way.

                • dyzone · 21 hours ago

                  IDEs are designed for humans. LLMs aren't human. They can analyze and process craptons if text in seconds.

                  • jbvlkt · 20 hours ago

                    My last post was not about writing or processing code at all.

                  • stickfigure · 20 hours ago

                    You envision a world in which humans don't look at code. I think that world is farther off than you think, especially in critical line of business software. You can YOLO it with your internal dashboard or your hipster coffee review site, but in my 2M-line highly regulated banking system, humans sign off on the code - even if LLMs do most of the typing.

              • lol768 · 21 hours ago

                > This stopped once LSP was designed No, it didn't stop. In my experience, LSPs are still incredibly poor and comparatively primitive vs the actual analysis that JetBrains have implemented. It's night-and-day different in terms of the supported refactorings, actual understanding of the types and the codebase etc. Also, LSP is just poorly designed and inefficient. JSON-RPC was an awful choice, the specification text is not well-written and the whole thing feels like a Microsoft pet project for VS Code than an open specification that everyone agrees works well.

              • mike_hearn · 3 hours ago

                I think the name misleads people about LSPs. LSPs are basically plugins for VS Code. The protocol semantics are visual, so they're tied to what VS Code wanted to display on screen. They don't really change the game, especially as you always had the option of using IDEA's own plugins in other tools and text editors (yes! there is an API and you can start up a headless IDEA to access it, even from programs written in C or Rust). Not many did that because JetBrains never cared much to properly document this path, and so using LSPs is a better paved cowpath. But that's because IDEs aren't a real business for Microsoft, whereas they are for JetBrains, and we know where that leads - the landscape is filled with the skeletons of dead IDEs that were just loss making corporate side projects, defunded and "donated" to some foundation once the executive sponsors moved on. NetBeans and Eclipse are two of the most obvious but there have been others. The risk with VS Code is it goes the same way. Eventually Microsoft needs to cut back, perhaps due to needing more capital for AI or due to AI related losses, and in the general layoffs that follow VS Code gets cut back to a skeleton crew.

        • Geof25 · 23 hours ago

          Not using tooling (or not creating one) for repeating tasks and trying to one shot everything with latest frontier model is a difference between the bill for AI usage being 10 Eur or 10000 Eur

        • ExoticPearTree · 21 hours ago

          While I "vibe code" more and more these days, an IDE that still does code highlighting, I can use it to look up functions source and so on, it is very useful to be able to figure out what the LLM did. And yes, there are people who use vim in a screen session, but I don't fit into that category. I like my GoLand IDE. And while there are a ton of IDEs out there, I use what I'm used to.

      • miohtama · 23 hours ago

        I have been Jetbrains subscriber for over a decade and stopped using them last year. Visual Studio Code did LLM integration better. And now I am using VS Code less and less with AI-native control plane like Paseo. I can literally develop on my mobile phone.

      • PunchyHamster · 23 hours ago

        They picked weird direction. "Here, pay ENTIRE EXTRA SUB to use the LLM we made that is worse than one you're already using". Yeah, no, vast majority just want to pick a AI vendor and integrate it into their IDEA or CLion or whatever other editor they were already using. Pushing into entirely different subscription was dead on arrival. They figured that out and started integrating it into main tooling ( https://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/33314-air ), but they definitely wasted a bunch of resources on something nobody really wanted.

        • donor20 · 22 hours ago

          This was so annoying as a long time subscriber- we were begging them to get / let us integrate some of the more mainstream models - didn’t help that there early model was terrible

      • bcrosby95 · 21 hours ago

        I mostly use it to review and tweak the changes LLMs make. However it feels like a pretty weak use case for the price involved.

    • mattbrewsbytes · 23 hours ago

      I still have this naive notion that we don't need LLMs for code generation and editing. Does a system need the knowledge of the full works of Shakespeare to be able to output Javascript? Maybe people smarter than me know better but couldn't there be a middle ground where an IDE/Editor has an embedded engine (doesn't need to be a full-on LLM) that doesn't require external tool calls and token spend? If an organization is paying $2400/year per developer for tokens and a highly intelligent editor/IDE comes around that charges $1000/yr and gets more output at a fixed cost, its a no-brainer of a decision.

      • dimitrios1 · 23 hours ago

        I have hope we will get there eventually, once all the hype/wealth extraction/boys club giving all their buddies money cycles end, and the specialized tools with real value start to emerge.

        • intrasight · 22 hours ago

          These specialized tools already deliver tremendous value. What happens on the backend financially is of no concern to me, as I have no influence over it.

      • blktiger · 23 hours ago

        I think the amount of knowledge to correctly work on code is more than you'd think, because at the end of the day writing code without an understanding of the environment it exists in/for is likely to not fit the problem correctly. Maybe it doesn't need knowledge of _Shakespeare_ per se, but if you were working on a virtual tabletop having knowledge of tabletop games can help with identifying the right implementation to use, knowing what kind of constraints to consider, etc.

      • Sheeny96 · 23 hours ago

        Forgive my naive understanding of LLMs - but how do you get semantic understanding of a codebase, such that it knows what changes to make/why/where, without a wider understanding of language more broadly? I'm using the word understanding loosely there, but I couldn't think of another word.

        • afavour · 22 hours ago

          It's a totally fair question. I'm personally wondering if there's a half way point. Some kind of structured language that isn't plain English that a "dumb" LLM is able to parse. It could be human written, or it could be written by a "smart" LLM at a greater cost.

          • FranOntanaya · 19 hours ago

            The more we go in that direction we closer we get to reinventing frameworks in a more compute heavy way. It just so happens that there's no framework (outside silos) for many specific tasks, and AI is the workaround to surface those patterns.

        • edukite · 22 hours ago

          Depends on what exactly you want to change. Lsp can do a lot but only in very simple changes. Intellij when I used to use it had a lot great features like refactoring, extracting part of code as a function, renaming and creating empty classes/boilerplate but that's it In current job I can order LLM to take data sink from other endpoint and write new with given URL. It will fetch from endpoint, check what it gives, compare with other and write new sink. Then it needs polishing because it always create something as awful as possible with cloning data all around but the most boring and soul sucking part is done

          • spockz · 22 hours ago

            This is why I am working on https://github.com/spockz/semantic-editor . To bring more powerful editing functionality to agents. In a way that attaches to their chain of thought and deals with their probabilistic framing in json so it all works out cheaper and faster.

        • nly · 19 hours ago

          LLMs at my work have access to Slack chat history, the Wiki, the complete git history, (AI generated) notes from every in person meeting team meeting, JIRA, all code reviews, and all production logs, as well as your personal email (when you run it yourself) They can typically explain the history of something faster than any human

          • avivak · 1 hour ago

            How does your agent wire all the information? Does it use MCP for all of them or do you use another method to access or collect the data? and how does it resolve contradictions (one source say one thing, another say otherwise).

      • AIblemblio · 23 hours ago

        I think this already happens through Mixture of Experts which is now build in to ost models. But finding out what an LLM needs to understand from a business side to write your code good, is an otpimzation which no one cares currently. I'm pretty sure we either stay on big full frontier models for a long time, just use them for everything or we will start to see more and more people doing finetuning/project specific training like java + german + english + business contxt xy; It will be an indicator for the whole industry.

        • DrewADesign · 22 hours ago

          My gut says the economics, e.g hardware/data center/resource constraints, are going make the economics of small specialized models more attractive. Without any evidence whatsoever, I also think that the big frontier companies will have to de-emphasize chatbots as huge models in favor of chatbots as huge products with a much much more granular mixture of experts approach, but with much smaller models. I’ve been saying for a while now that AI products have to hit the gas on prioritizing product design to reliably solve real people’s problems in predictable-enough ways, because the current approach is only really appealing to enthusiasts, developers, or optimistic managers, and with the kind of money they’re throwing around, that’s not going to work.

          • saalweachter · 18 hours ago

            My gut is that you could distill 98% of what's currently being done inside LLMs into a classical knowledge base/inference engine and only use the language models for natural language processing and an oracle for brainstorming and cut most of the computational cost and hallucinations out.

      • Roark66 · 23 hours ago

        You know what, considering there was a recent "small" open weights LLM released recently that meets 90% of my coding needs I'm inclined to agree. Qwen3.8-Flash-Next - relatively small, it runs on 6 6 year old GPUs on my home PC happily running 5 simultaneous 262k sessions with additional 10 cached in RAM (bought back when you didn't have to remortgage your house for Ram) and it has been the first local model that is not a toy. But there is a class of problems where I still reach for Anthropic's fable... However, I have a hunch bordering with certainty Anthropic is achieving such great results by doing a lot of harness tricks. For example opus 4.8, is not much better on coding than before mentioned Qwen model, but gets amazing results on factual knowledge stuff (the knowing all works of Shakespeare thing). How hard would it be to add a general knowledge RAG to requests that contain relevant questions and beat all benchmarks like that? Not very hard. So I think there is big innovation to be had in harnesses, routers, inference and so on. As to money spent on AI per developer my current client (a fortune 200 software company) spends $500 per month. That is $6k a year. A lot more than your examples. And many people run out of their quota pretty quickly.

        • softfalcon · 22 hours ago

          I was inclined to listen to your take… then you started talking about having 6 graphics cards in your computer and acting like that’s a normal thing that people do…

          • nunodonato · 21 hours ago

            we use that same model at our company, it powers not only our devs but also many business needs. We rent 1 gpu (B300), it costs around 10x less than the api costs

            • maxnevermind · 20 hours ago

              Do you rent from AWS or some other provider? I wonder if there are issues with on-demand rent for those high-end GPU instances, is capacity always there or sometimes it is unavailable?

              • lallysingh · 19 hours ago

                If there's some cost or availability question you have, AWS has some complicated bullshit to solve the problem for you. Check out reserved instances.

              • nunodonato · 16 hours ago

                I don't touch AWS. We rent from an european provider. Demand can be tricky for serverless/spot-pricing. We have an always-on server so, no issues.

          • SR2Z · 20 hours ago

            Yeah but they're from 2020. Normal people in a few years might have that in their laptops , just clocked way down to save on power. That's what, the same as a Mac studio?

            • NotOscarWilde · 18 hours ago

              Keep in mind that GPU iteration cycles are slowing down significantly for some time now, so "a GPU from 2020" can actually mean NVIDIA RTX 3090 with 24 GB VRAM, one of the best cards you can buy in 2026 for local LLM use; in fact buying one used is probably the best choice right now, because newer generation RTXes are crazy expensive.

              • SR2Z · 14 hours ago

                I have two. I paid <$1000 for each, before this craziness started. They work , sure, but 48GB of VRAM is just not enough to use a local LLM like a cloud model.

          • Grombobulous · 20 hours ago

            The other pitfall here is that we are tempted to compare this crazy setup to frontier models when the real comparison is running this same model in OpenRouter. This 6 GPU setup will probably outspend OpenRouter on electricity alone.

          • exographicskip · 19 hours ago

            Normal for r/localllama or r/localllm maybe

        • cyclopeanutopia · 20 hours ago

          Can you tell more about the class of problems that need Fable?

          • waffletower · 18 hours ago

            A hint: Large complex software architecture design and planning.

            • smrtinsert · 12 hours ago

              Doubt. High level plans have less detail to worry about.

          • TheFlyingFish · 15 hours ago

            Not the person to whom you responded, but several times I have been dealing with debugging. Issue, tried. Opus/Sol/whatever and come up dry, then thrown it at Fable and gotten the solution in one shot.

      • PunchyHamster · 23 hours ago

        > Maybe people smarter than me know better but couldn't there be a middle ground where an IDE/Editor has an embedded engine (doesn't need to be a full-on LLM) that doesn't require external tool calls and token spend? IDEA already have small LLM for one line code completion IIRC. But the gain people want from LLM is generally "here, add this entire feature" or "here, go thru every dependency's changelog and update code to work with latest version". Those are not small LLM tasks

        • glenpierce · 22 hours ago

          Great idea! It’d be something like Common Business Oriented Language, or COBOL for short.

      • bryanrasmussen · 22 hours ago

        I suppose how much literary support you need in your model depends directly on how erudite the comments are. Would there be problem domains in which the more educated LLM would perform better? Are your names directly related to concepts from said domain, LLM comments: "I think it may be a potential bug that the sum VATAddedTax gets added to the TaxFreeItems". I mean it seems a bit unnecessary but also maybe it can help in unexpected ways.

      • JambalayaJimbo · 22 hours ago

        We’re conditioned to interact with language models as chatbots and in that sense strong language understanding (implicit - some sort of world knowledge), is probably necessary for that? But I’m sure we can have a small model that’s really strong at programming concepts, JavaScript syntax, and that’s about it. You’d interact with it differently, at specific seams in your code base - review a PR, merge two functions together, investigate these logs. Or maybe I’m just not adequately absorbing the bitter lesson. Idk

      • trimethylpurine · 22 hours ago

        I'm not an expert, but I think that: 1. Storing Shakespeare's work costs almost no $ in regards to disk space. 2. If the prompt doesn't include "Shakespeare" or relevant terms then no regression is performed for that topic and therefore there is no effective token cost. Someone may correct me, but I think it's not a big $ win to exclude relevant topics from the models' overall capabilities. Instead you'd tune weights so that #2 better identifies what is or isn't among the relevant terms on which to run regressions.

        • smaudet · 21 hours ago

          I think you're probably missing the forest for the trees here... broadly speaking, these multibillion "parameter" (whatever that actually means) models store a lot more than shakespeare, and have storage costs in the 100s of GB/TB (which translates to $$$$$$ in SSD/RAM costs), nevermind the (kilos/mega/giga)watts involved, all the pollution, etc... Meanwhile, a template (maybe a couple KB) costs less than a couple cents to store and run. Large Languages Models are not really interesting, (smaller) LLMs that only contain "what you need" are.

          • behringer · 21 hours ago

            To me it feels like the difference between crows and humans. Yes crows are smart, but what we really want are all inclusive models capable of human "thinking" . I guess we probably need a mix of both so we can give the crows the easy jobs freeing up resources.

            • trimethylpurine · 15 hours ago

              Right but if the cost difference is negligible, as I've pointed out in another comment, in what case would you prefer to tell the crow twice to do something that a better weighted large model could do in one prompt? I don't see it. In every case my time is more valuable than the cost of the prompt (so far) so the higher dollar cost, one shot, "getter done" model is the better net value option. This is especially true when taking into account that the crow doesn't just fail on a single prompt, it does something much worse. It creates new problems that need to be undone afterwards. It confidently duplicates, triplicates, etc. a damaging work output that then needs more and more work to clean up before starting over.

          • trimethylpurine · 15 hours ago

            Claude Fable 5.1 currently estimates its own total data set at 45TB. That's a trivial number for sharing between a small user base of, in my case, 150 employees. What am I missing? You're talking about maybe $60k retail cost in high read speed SANs that are likely already in place for a business of this size anyway? (Probably purchased a few years ago for under $30k. At least mine are.) In a US data center I'm paying a flat rate for rack space, so power consumption isn't a consideration anyway, but honestly it really isn't that much power even if I was being billed for it. It's really nothing. An overlooked line item on a budget sheet. So the real cost if I were to self host is video cards. But as mentioned previously, that's not reduced by smaller data sets, it's reduced by better weighted models, right? Let me know if I'm mistaken, please. I'm very interested to be persuaded otherwise as a decision maker. Thanks for your insight and ideas. Considering all of the above, I'm currently of the mind that a lower cost model that makes more mistakes is much more expensive in net, actually. So I prefer the most accurate, better weighted model, not the slimmer data set.

      • pavlov · 21 hours ago

        > "Does a system need the knowledge of the full works of Shakespeare to be able to output Javascript?" If the implementation brief says "attempting a reconnect in this handler would be a wild goose chase", the model needs to know enough Shakespeare, at least indirectly, to understand that expression...

      • prpl · 21 hours ago

        Did you learn english or C first?

        • 0x457 · 20 hours ago

          I learned C first, then Perl. Sometimes I get an epiphany that terms I use in programming have meanings other than what it means in programming.

          • saulpw · 19 hours ago

            But you learned English (or some other human language) before either of those..

            • 0x457 · 16 hours ago

              Well, the post I’m replying to says that English was learned first, and I’m saying that I learned Perl before I learned English. I don't think LLM needs to know Shakespeare to understand: "attempting a reconnect in this handler would be a wild goose chase." I would even bet that most people learned of this expression before reading Romeo and Julie.

      • ChrisRR · 21 hours ago

        I don't need AI in the same way that I don't need autocomplete. I can definitely program without autocompletion, but I'm a lot slower than others who use it

      • jimbokun · 21 hours ago

        It is very difficult to predict ahead of time what knowledge a model would need to understand a prompt to generate a program. It could refer to all kinds of real world knowledge referring to the kinds of entities you want the program to model.

      • yeahBoiii · 21 hours ago

        Because we don't need code func randomName () { desired machine physics } Everything around "desired machine physics" is superfluous wank; historically a biz case stored as code when some UI could feed biz case params go a function generator Come on we know what we use computers for; media consumption and 2D data entry/review. Locally we just need a core engine for geometric transforms of visual state. What all these languages give us ability to create such a generic VM filled with customized semantics that mean nothing to solving the problem but plenty to a clever coder. Kind of like Unicode we need distilled geometry primitives like "teapot for text" and desktop metaphors and to let people put the superfluous wank at the presentation layer Which text used to be so making UI out of layers of text, OOP, and such made sense for decades But we're just engaged in bloating system state through def jargon_to_encapsulate { desired machine physics } when we already know it's going to be simulated 3D or 2D visual transforms. We don't need to capture all those states in code verbatim. Things like Jev are the future of models. Fine tuned on transforms given a context. "So you want to replicate GTA5? Here's a data set of geometric shapes and gradients constraints from all observed xyz" pipe that into your local renderer We're entering the phase of software engineering (and engineering generally) where we realized we been dramatically over playing the song and can strip out entire asides and digressions, circumlocutions of provenance, to tighten up pacing and improve enjoyment of the outcomes. Hopefully. Or we kill ourselves. Through social squabbles (political, economic, religious, whatever) due to laziness to learn etiquette, and environmental destruction.

      • amelius · 21 hours ago

        This is exactly what the frontier models are trying to do! Check this graph: https://paraplouis.github.io/llm-pareto-frontier/

      • gedy · 20 hours ago

        > Does a system need the knowledge of the full works of Shakespeare to be able to output Javascript? That's needed to interpret the 10000 monkeys typing requirements in the various corporate product roles /s

      • throwaway27448 · 20 hours ago

        > Does a system need the knowledge of the full works of Shakespeare to be able to output Javascript? Probably not unless you're writing tooling relevant to literature or prose, but I can't imagine trusting jetbrains (or any ai studio) to curate this.

      • nico · 20 hours ago

        Looking at what Jev has shown, and what is being done in the space. I think you are right that there’s probably a lot of room for performance improvement on specific tasks and workflows that will be happening in the next few years I also imagine it could be a big shakeup if all of a sudden models could run on CPU. Imagine running an Astra-level coding agent, locally on your laptop. All of a sudden GPUs wouldn’t look as valuable, if you don’t need them as much We are still some time away from that, but it seems like progress is being made

      • stickfigure · 20 hours ago

        > Does a system need the knowledge of the full works of Shakespeare to be able to output Javascript? What language do you plan on prompting it in?

        • mattbrewsbytes · 20 hours ago

          I plan to use english, but not 1500's english. That might be a bad example ... replace english with nearly anything not related to prompting/coding. For example, I bet the models have "knowledge" of biology, chemistry, etc. not exactly useful for programming a SaaS web app that say does project mgmt. I think there's opportunity for very specific tooling rather than "general" knowledge.

          • stickfigure · 19 hours ago

            I don't train LLMs myself, but my impression is that general knowledge has lead to more intelligent behavior on specific tasks. The voluminous training set is imporant. But even besides that... Yesterday I prompted a feature by referencing a specific Monty Python skit. Does the coding tool need to know Monty Python? Maybe I could describe the feature in other terms, but it sure was convenient to have this shared knowledge. I don't see why Shakespeare would be any different.

      • gwt4life · 20 hours ago

        I have a feeling that when all the AI-hype dust settles, what you describe will be the killer app of AI. That, ChatBots and unstructured data processing. Huge productivity improvements but not the sci-fi hype of today.

      • Tade0 · 20 hours ago

        > Does a system need the knowledge of the full works of Shakespeare to be able to output Javascript? Turns out that actually - no. Researchers have managed to prune half the Experts in a MoE model that had a low probability of getting activated during coding tasks, resulting in a more focused model: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.16721 Main benefit is that it greatly reduces the amount of RAM required to run these models. Of course you could just cache those unused experts on disk instead, but the main point here is that you know which ones matter. But aside from that recent models, like Qwen3.8-27b are reportedly more durable under heavy quantisation, e.g. 3bits or even ternary. With additional techniques like TurboQuant, you can feasibly run these models on consumer hardware - even if at 1/4th the speed you'd get from rented infrastructure. VS Code has extensions such as Kilo Code or llama-vscode which let you work with local models much like you would with cloud based solutions.

      • nly · 19 hours ago

        > If an organization is paying $2400/year per developer for tokens My employer is spending $50,000/yr per employee on tokens, and they're not alone

        • BatFastard · 19 hours ago

          I would say paying 50,000 USD per year for tokens to double productivity is cheap. And hopefully they are just paying that per developer, not per employee.

          • trollbridge · 18 hours ago

            No kidding. As a small employer I expect to be spending $200 a month so each employee can have an OAI or Claude 20x sub, or else spend it on the Chinese prepaid tokens of their choice.

      • __alexs · 19 hours ago

        CodeRabbit emits LLM generated poetry in its comments so maybe more than you'd think?