← Back to context

Comment by 2001zhaozhao

4 hours ago

I think they definitely have the IDE vision in mind and are trying to move off of terminals, based on two parts of the original article

> so you can close the application, reconnect from another device, and pick up exactly where you left off.

I think this is the remote IDE development dream that no one could quite get right, partly because there wasn't enough reason to run things on a 24/7 device. I think with coding agents that can run in the background this changes.

> Sessions can be accessed through the web and native macOS/iOS applications, and sharing a live session with other people is built in from the start.

I'd really like to point out that "Sharing a live session" is horrible UX for a terminal multiplexer because the terminal has to be the same size (# of rows/cols) on all viewers' screens, and some of these viewers may be on a phone and others on a laptop. Believe it, I tried myself and there's no good way around the problem.

What is interesting is that they added this sentence anyway. This tells me that their long-term endgame is not the terminal. They're most likely trying to build a GUI-based agent IDE and then eventually expand to other work (per their headline of being the "multiplexer for all work") as it all gets more and more agent-based anyways. Well, they're not alone in having that vision.

Do you think the future is more sophisticated agent management, or will tooling increasingly fall away to a single chat session with an executive agent of sorts?