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.

Unless you are blindly vibe coding everything without an IDE to help navigate what is being generated to review the output, working would be hellish.

And if you are blindly vibe coding everything, I am just glad I don't have to work with you. While LLMs mostly speed me up, they make serious mistakes often enough that a review is necessary.

That's a small subset of the functionality you would need if you're actually authoring code. So the IDE maybe be more valuable, but the feature set you need is actually much smaller and can probably be redesigned given your narrow workflow.

Is this accurate?

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?

AI can do all of that quite well. If you take your hands off of the wheel, lean into it, start building systems for it, start figuring out where it goes wrong on your codebase and building systems to prevent that... you might get 10x more done. I do, and the results are generally better than anything I'd have coded by hand, because there was never enough time.

I don't look at or try to grok all changes, though. I couldn't get near as much done, otherwise, and I'm not convinced that 1 hr of me looking over it is better than 4 hrs of AI looking over it, and the AI is far cheaper. I look over the code, occasionally, to look for code that's objectively terrible, but I don't fix it directly - I use it as a test-case for improving my AI stack, to make it able to find and fix or prevent that class of terrible.

I probably spend 9 out of 10 credits on review and refinement, not writing fresh code. In spite of that, I'm still producing things way faster than I ever did by hand, with only a single $200/mo Codex plan.

I still keep my JetBrains' subscription, so that agents can use the MCP. I probably spend <5h per month in an IDE myself, though.

Of course, but agents are also opening up new possibilities to do these jobs.

For example, you can do quick first code review with agent, or you can ask agent to add couple of print statements and debug the code until it figures out the issue, also for discovery, you can do discovery with agents and generate nice output with the details you want (although not accurate sometimes)

As a JetBrains user myself, whose organization cancelled the IntelliJ license recently, I can attest things I am doing inside IntelliJ is getting less and less. I am primarily using IntelliJ for code navigation at the moment, which is still the best one

I do think JetBrains has an advantage here with their background and reputation. I'm constantly reshaping my tools literally every month, so hopefully they build some type of staple development IDE to fit these type of workflows. I don't know what that is yet.

AIR looks interesting, but I can't say this is the "AI IDE moment" yet.

I do feel however they have been neglecting anything non-AI for a while now. I in particular loved their auto complete, and with the new guesswork AI auto complete it's just not the same. I want deterministic behaviour from my IDE.

On the LLM side, I couldn't use the Anthropic subscription with their offerings, so I just use it from a harness outside the IDE, and switch to the IDE for review. This may not be JB's fault, but it still makes their offering useless to me.

I may be one of the few remaining but I also still program myself sometimes (I weigh it based on the task). The IDE has been pushing so much AI it has been getting in my way sometimes, and it is definitely using more resources for stuff I don't use.

I too am on the fence on whether I'll resume my subscription. Luckily for JB I dearly dislike VSCode's code navigation and interface, and would severely miss their debugging tools integration.

I know harnesses (and harness harnesses) have a long way to go and lots of improvements even without models getting “smarter”, I’m rooting for JetBrains but so far IDEA has been more of hindrance in the LLM-era. The CLI TUI’s have become the most important tool I have and the GUI versions haven’t kept pace.

I’d love to live in IDEA instead of the CLI but so far I’ve found that to be too limiting and not as adaptable to our rapidly changing field. Maybe Air will help with that, we will see.

I want something like herdr in IDEA, a way to monitor agents, smart worktree integration, easily visualize changes and use the power of the InteliJ brains to assist in coding (lint/checks/etc).

Right now my IDE gets more in my way than assists me in shipping code.

What is the problem with using Codex in Rider, can you please share? It's generally available, with your own Codex subscription or via JetBrains AI.

There's so much going on right now, and the push to PaaS is not performing as well in my opinion.

Take a look at how Herdr got viral, and how it exposes protocols that let others come and build with it. Multiplexers are a good bet, though there are plenty of other verticals out there too.

I would say try to chase another ReSharper moment for you guys.