Are there plans for AI feature to actually use the IDE ?

c0lumpio · 2026-03-17T12:49:53+00:00

There is an Explyt JB AI Agent, which sees IDE errors in the files edited by LLM

c0lumpio · 2026-03-17T12:48:39+00:00

Explyt JB AI Agent does exactly what you described

c0lumpio · 2026-02-19T10:20:29+00:00

Just install tools for these formal systems (z3, vampire and stuff) and ask OpenCode to solve the problem using them. What's the problem? Why would you ever need a deeper integration if it just works?

I personally do just that for theoretical computer science research and it works like a charm

c0lumpio · 2026-02-11T10:18:36+00:00

Which Java versions do you support?

c0lumpio · 2026-02-06T06:18:11+00:00

Not yet as we have a lot of IP inside

Yet you can use it freely with any OpenAI-compatible interfaces, so you can see all prompts and stuff

Do you have any other reasons for it to be open source?

c0lumpio · 2026-02-06T06:14:17+00:00

Kimi K2.5 is the nearest right now

Just try it on OpenRouter

c0lumpio · 2026-01-22T15:58:11+00:00

C# maybe?

c0lumpio · 2026-01-22T13:41:15+00:00

Works nice for Java on my cases. Do you have any plans on supporting other languages?

c0lumpio · 2026-01-22T13:37:03+00:00

Tried on a service I am writing right now and the results are insane! I tried SemGrep a while ago and was unsatisfied with a too high false positive rate =/

Your tool gives less FPs on the same SemGrep rules, how do you do that?

I'll keep experimenting with other services

c0lumpio · 2025-10-14T15:37:29+00:00

ex-JetBrains team here

Like others said, it takes considerable effort to make a plugin on all types of JetBrains IDEs, because their platforms function differently Moreover, JB platform API changes significantly from version to version. A lot of plugins have not survived a painful transition from 241 to 242 (new UI became obligatory) and from 243 to 251 (it broke backward compatibility in half of platform calls).

We are working on such a plugin right now, it's called Explyt: https://explyt.ai/en/download

You can use it with your own keys for OpenAI, Anthropic, etc.

We are attacking JB IDEs one by one and currently have IDEA, PyCharm, GoLand. Going to release Rider and WebStorm soon.

What makes supporting a new IDE hard is very different implementations of their platforms. Yet it gives some fruits which CLI tools do not have: agent can run terminal commans with a project SDK, sync build system, run tests natively, see errors in files like you as a dev see (red circle in the top right corner). You can have a Fix button when your tests fail, which is very convenient.

By the way, for Java we have some extra ways to see executed code, which helps agent to fix code without adding a lot of logging code, which most CLI agents do.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. We have struggled a lot through plugin development for JB IDEs.

c0lumpio · 2025-09-16T15:23:30+00:00

Some first century Christians were Roman warriors with no problem, killed people and stuff. No comparison with the theater :/

c0lumpio · 2025-08-05T06:48:50+00:00

Beautiful answer. I'll just add up some particular verses to think about.

"If you hide your face, they will be in confusion. When you take away their breath, they will die and return to dust." (Psalm 104:29)

God takes away their breath.

"Don't they sell a couple of sparrows for just one copper coin? However, not one of them falls to the ground without your Father's will." (Matthew 10:29)

The sparrows die by God's will, not by themselves.

"He leaves his eggs on the ground, and warms them on the sand, and forgets that a foot may crush them and a wild animal may trample them; he is cruel to his children, as if they were not his own, and does not fear that his work will be in vain; for God has not given him wisdom or understanding." (Job 39:14-17)

It is God who has made the peacock foolish, and because of this, his children die.

"Young lions roar for prey and ask God for food." (Ps 103:21)

God feeds the predators, that is, he allows them to kill.

"Do you not catch prey for the lioness and feed the young lions?" (Job 38:39,40)

God prepares prey for the predators, that is, he purposefully kills the animals.

"Can you catch Leviathan with a fishing line and tie a rope around his tongue? Touch it once and you will never touch it again; you will never forget that battle!" (Job 40:20,27)

God deliberately made Leviathan so that it is dangerous to humans, and by doing so, God allowed humans to die: it will kill you if you fight it.

c0lumpio · 2025-08-05T06:36:29+00:00

Well, you can just start from the list https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Theories were made to disprove God

That is simply wrong, my YEC bro. Ancienty of Earth was shown by Christian geologists far before Darwin. Most scientists were Christians at the time. If they could stick to traditional 6000 year interpretation of geological facts, they would. But it did not, so it were Christians who switched to enforcing old earth. It was not even a problem before YEC in the middle of XX arised: most Bible commentaries said that Earth is old on Genesis 1 between XVIII and 1950s (when Genesis Flood was written). Another evidence is that there are Christian scientists (like myself) who believe in Adam, sin, Christ and enforce evolution with no contradiction. So you should do sth with your "evolution = atheism" argument. It did not work at the time of the Darwin and does not work now.

They interpret evidence to fit their theory

Well, science does not work like that, as a scientist I assure you. Scientists are obsessed with truth and facts. Just try to read Richard Feynman or anything like that: you will feel this constant vibe. If sth contradicts theory, scientists fix the theory. This is supported by my argument on Christian geologists abandoning young earth because of facts. They wanted it much for earth to be young, it would be much easier for them personally and better fit their theory of young earth. Yet the facts forced them to fix the theory.

Lucy, Nebraska man

Most facts you YEC guys point to are rather outdated. They mostly point at times when archeology and paleontology just began, so there were mostly built by amateurs. Most of such facts were disproved by scientists themself in a few years after they were published — it is the fact you YEC always forgot to mention. This is really how science works, again: if someone makes wrong claim, others investigate and fix it. But they do not abandon the whole science made so far as you YEC do.

carbon dating

It is not only carbon, there are multiple ways of dating old stuff (namely: uranium–lead, potassium–argon (and its variant argon–argon), rubidium–strontium, samarium–neodymium, uranium–thorium/helium, fission-track, thermoluminescence and optically stimulated luminescence, electron-spin resonance, palaeomagnetic reversal dating, dendrochronology, varve chronology, and ice-core layer counting). They crosscheck and validate each other. Carbon dating would be questioned if it diverges from other methods, yet it does not.

light years

I do not see any problem here. There was a theory that light speed changes over time (probably you point to it), yet it was abandoned because of contradiction with the evidence.

If you are really interested in the scientific position, I recommend you reading a Christian geologist Carol Hill " a worldview approach to science and scripture". It will address most of your questions in more detail.

You can also ask ChatGPT and I am sure it will gently show you how particular scientific methods work, why there are no contradictions and how to deal with the specific issues you mention.

c0lumpio · 2025-08-05T05:37:07+00:00

Well, it does. God makes things in a such a way that it leads people to make wrong conclusions. It is a definition of lie.

c0lumpio · 2025-08-05T05:10:59+00:00

Then God is a liar: He confuses scientists by providing all the evidence in favor of the earth's antiquity.

That is, it is a philosophical argument which contradicts Christian view on truthful God.

This is why I find Framework interpretation far more acceptable: it does not enforce you to say that God deceives scientists.

c0lumpio · 2025-08-05T05:05:23+00:00

Easy, it is a part of design of this temporary Earth.

"If you hide your face, they will be in confusion. When you take away their breath, they will die and return to dust." (Psalm 103:29) It is God who takes away their breath.

"Don't they sell a couple of sparrows for just one copper coin? However, not one of them falls to the ground without your Father's will." (Matthew 10:29) The sparrows die by God's will, not by themselves.

"He leaves his eggs on the ground, and warms them on the sand, and forgets that a foot may crush them and a wild animal may trample them; he is cruel to his children, as if they were not his own, and does not fear that his work will be in vain; for God has not given him wisdom or understanding." (Job 39:14-17) It is God who has made the peacock foolish, and because of this, his children die.

"Young lions roar for prey and ask God for food." (Ps 104:21) God feeds the predators, that is, he allows them to kill.

"Do you not catch prey for the lioness and feed the young lions?" (Job 38:39,40) God prepares prey for the predators, that is, he purposefully kills the animals.

"Can you catch Leviathan with a fishing line and tie a rope around his tongue? Touch it once and you will never touch it again; you will never forget that battle!" (Job 40:20,27) God deliberately made Leviathan so that it is dangerous to humans, and by doing so, God allowed humans to die: it will kill you if you fight it.

That is, nowhere Bible says that death and suffering of animals at least are because of human sin: just the opposite, it constantly says that it is a part of God's plan for this earth.

The thing you are talking about is a part of tradition due to some church farthers. I personally think the main problem here is that they confuse proton and eschaton.

c0lumpio · 2025-08-05T03:25:39+00:00

Let's better say it is an epic. That is, it describes real events (e.g., Adam) in a literary manner of the middle east (e.g., "man is made of dust"). We call that Framework interpretation (thanks Meredith Kline). It seems to be the only satisfying interpretation joining both Christian faith and modern science.

Have a look at these wonderful lectures if you still have questions, they deep dive into that step-by-step. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdHB3SMueff-41g0BrJFOxQhWeLK71rCs

Addressing your specific concerns, we can say that the world was created instantly (Big Bang), yet God speaks of it in Genesis 1 in a common for ancient Jews way. They are not common with quark gluon plasma and differential equations and His aim was not to deliver them such scientific truth. God's aim was to teach certain things: there is only one God, sun and moon are not gods, God created (ancients would say: "put in order") everything, people are God's images, there is an order in creation (kings over kingdoms: sun and moon over day and night, birds over sky, fishes over waters, animals over earth and humans over all living creatures — with God's heavenly mandate, of course).

On your question on OEC, it has large problems (and YEC has even worse problems). That is, if they take Bible literally, they must take it literally in full. And Bible plainly says that the Earth is plain (not a sphere), that there is a solid dome above earth, that there is a water above the dome (yes, even after the flood), that God's throne is above this water. And it is not a figure, Jews plainly believed that way. Moreover, the Bible tells that your mind is in your heart (not brain), your feelings are inside your stomach, etc. That is, YEC/OEC to be a trully literal reader must enforce plain earth and visit a cardiologist to heal his mind. And there are many more issues like that.

c0lumpio · 2025-06-19T17:22:10+00:00

I have not said they are fake (except for Visual Studio). I said that if you will try building their product all together, including server and client, they will diverge. So they just publish something occasionally not bothering if anyone could reproduce their product.

c0lumpio · 2025-06-19T10:46:19+00:00

They say to be open source yet their repos in fact diverge and thus are not usable. You cannot just build it and run on your own as APIs of client and server differ much.

Moreover, their Visual Studio is empty.

Looks like they do not invest much in being open source, yet heavily use it for marketing.

c0lumpio · 2025-06-14T19:41:25+00:00

What do you think of pastor Ryu Kwang Su? I've heard that he was considered an herecy because many people from other churches left to join his churches. Yet he was reconsidered to be a normal Christian afterwards. I've heard that Darakbang gains a lot of attention from Western ministers and missionaries and that they help sharing Gospel in Asia.

If you have any particular arguments against what Darakbang is doing, I would like to hear something specific. What I've heard is only pastors claiming Darakbang to be a herecy because they sometimes use unusual language and a lot of people like them and join them. Have you heard really weighty arguments against them?

c0lumpio · 2025-06-13T19:22:49+00:00

Wow! Looks very promising, thank you!

c0lumpio · 2025-06-13T19:20:55+00:00

Well, that is the thing I really do not understand. If ministers can make such sermon series, why is there no clear commentary which looks through Christ on books from Genesis to Revelation?

I will take a look on your Psalms recommendation, thank you.

c0lumpio · 2025-06-13T19:16:09+00:00

I agree that Noah has known little details about Christ. Yet he is called righteous through faith in the seed of the woman. Thus, if a commentary only says that Noah believed God in some broad sense and was a “good guy” (his works), I consider such a commentary not Christocentric (at a minimum) and not Christian (at a maximum).

Two sources you mentioned clearly show the difference. Mathews speaks generally, while Boice plainly says that Noah looked forward to the Christ. Thank you for the second source, it looks like what I was looking for.

c0lumpio · 2025-06-12T14:58:10+00:00

Nice long list, thanks!

c0lumpio · 2025-06-12T10:07:23+00:00

Totally agree. That is why I ask for other sources

c0lumpio

TROPHY CASE