[HN Gopher] Mistral Code
___________________________________________________________________
Mistral Code
Author : tosh
Score : 165 points
Date : 2025-06-04 17:50 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (mistral.ai)
(TXT) w3m dump (mistral.ai)
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| Pricing is 'contact us'.
| moralestapia wrote:
| Dead on Arrival
| behnamoh wrote:
| Since this is a fork of continue.dev I wonder about the legal
| implications of monetizing the project.
| wut42 wrote:
| Isn't Continue released under Apache 2?
| kiratp wrote:
| How do you launch a dev tool with a "contact us" call to action?
|
| It's like Mistral is choosing to fail here.
|
| Edit: I can't even tell if its a CLI tool, an IDE plugin or a
| standalone IDE!
|
| Edit 2: oh man! it's at the bottom of the page
|
| Edit 3: "Mistral Code Enterprise is currently only available with
| an enterprise license." :D
| closewith wrote:
| I think unfortunately Enterprise Call Us sales tactics are
| actually extremely effective.
| theyinwhy wrote:
| Are they? I never look at such software again unless forced
| by my boss.
| aerhardt wrote:
| I buy Enterprise software too and unless there is a good
| reason (there are no other alternatives, or I have complex
| requirements), I'll also quite often negatively factor
| being dropped into a sales funnel, with all it entails.
| closewith wrote:
| A form of pre-qualification, so.
| almost wrote:
| Yes, but how likely were you to spend tens of thousands of
| dollars or more on software?
| haswell wrote:
| I worked for enterprise software companies for a number of
| years.
|
| I'm not personally a fan of "call us" pricing, but it is
| indeed effective, and the companies that sell software this
| way do so because they prioritize establishing human
| relationships between a salesperson and the buyer.
|
| In the long run, this leads to more sales/upsells.
| bbarnett wrote:
| No, they specialize in knowing how to extract every
| single penny from you they can. Find out how big the
| company is, and bleed them as best possible.
|
| If you're too small, they won't even talk to you.
|
| That's what besoke pricing is.
|
| Knowing your client happens regardless of showing pricing
| or not.
| haswell wrote:
| This is a fairly cynical way to frame this. There is
| absolutely bad behavior in the enterprise software space,
| but that is certainly not universal, and is not inherent
| to the "call us" approach.
|
| > _If you 're too small, they won't even talk to you._
|
| This is often true. Some of the software I worked on was
| extremely expensive to host, and there was indeed a
| minimum threshold that was many multiples of $10K.
|
| It's not that the company didn't want smaller players to
| use the software, but that smaller players just weren't
| large enough to benefit from the minimum buy-in, and
| selling the software at a lower cost for those smaller
| customers would have just been pure loss. Over time, they
| were able to lower the minimum threshold due to
| improvements in the architecture and economies of scale,
| but the point here is just that these minimums often
| exist for good reasons.
|
| > _Knowing your client happens regardless of showing
| pricing or not._
|
| It really does not. Many software companies have a
| minimal relationship (if any) with their customers. For
| some customers and some product types, this is perfectly
| fine. But when a company is buying software that will
| cost the company millions/year, having a direct line to a
| real person who in turn can arrange conversations with
| product management, customer success, etc. is table
| stakes, and is often not possible or available with
| smaller vendors.
|
| You can dislike the model, but I'd suggest digging in to
| some of the _why_ before dismissing it too reductively.
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| > This is a fairly cynical way to frame this.
|
| dismissals of negative reactions as 'cynical' rarely
| acknowledge the fact that a 'cynical' response is often
| no more cynical than the cynicism of the target.
|
| bespoke pricing _is_ a cynical tactic, no matter how you
| dress it up. it provides a legal shroud, and i 've no
| more patience in me to give the benefit of the doubt to
| any profit-motivated enterprise that can't at least be
| upfront about what they want to charge for their
| services.
| haswell wrote:
| I think you overestimate the degree to which some
| software can be standardized and sold in a set of well-
| defined SKUs, and the degree to which some buyers want to
| be intimately familiar with extremely granular pricing
| (e.g. something like AWS).
|
| Again, speaking only for the places I worked, part of the
| reason pricing wasn't simple was that larger customer
| deployments were tuned to the customer based on a myriad
| of factors ranging from the specific software modules the
| customer purchased, use cases they intended to deploy and
| the load characteristics of those use cases, etc.
|
| Setting aside for a moment any potential bad behavior,
| the bottom line is that for some kinds of software,
| bespoke pricing is a more accurate reflection of the
| reality of the deployment than trying to force some kind
| of standardized label on it. The places I worked also had
| pricing books they'd show customers, but due to their
| complexity, they would not publish these publicly.
|
| > _bespoke pricing is a cynical tactic, no matter how you
| dress it up_
|
| We'll have to agree to disagree. Having worked with quite
| a few large vendors over the years, there are clear and
| obvious differences between them, better and worse
| reasons for this type of pricing, and there's a reason
| that some companies have earned a negative reputation
| while others have not.
|
| It's also not clear to me why you've concluded that this
| is all _inherently_ cynical.
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| maybe i overestimate. maybe i just appreciate the
| difference between the product and support for the
| product. for support, i understand a more-bespoke pricing
| model, but it'd be nice if there was at least some
| upfront inkling of how much i have to open my
| organization's veins in exchange for a working
| implementation.
|
| interacting with capital is a cynical act. capitalism is
| predatory but it's necessary to interact with it. if
| you're not cynical, you risk being taken for a worse ride
| than you have to be. this isn't me handwaving things;
| it's a fundamental aspect to how i see the world.
| cynicism doesn't have to be a simple doom-and-gloom
| "well, everything is bad, end of discussion" (regardless
| of my personal feelings about it) - it can be a tool to
| make sure you're able to interact with systems in ways
| that benefit you and others while retaining whatever
| modicum of control you can - because even if you aren't,
| your vendor _is_ (or they 're on their way to being out
| of business as a profit-motivated entity).
| haswell wrote:
| > maybe i just appreciate the difference between the
| product and support for the product. for support, i
| understand a more-bespoke pricing model
|
| I'm trying to frame this sentence so it doesn't sound
| like a jab because that's not my intent, but based on
| what you've written, I don't think you understand the
| kind of software I'm describing.
|
| In your mind, what is the distinction between the two,
| especially for an enterprise solution hosted by a vendor?
| In my experience, the two are often not so different at
| all, and the clean lines you imagine here are not lines
| that exist in practice. This will depend on the nature of
| the software, and the kind of support customers need
| (i.e. infrastructure vs. implementation).
|
| > _but it 'd be nice if there was at least some upfront
| inkling of how much i have to open my organization's
| veins in exchange for a working implementation._
|
| You are assuming this is not part of the model, but it
| is. Not publicly listing a pricing sheet does not in any
| way mean a customer doesn't have clarity about how much
| their deployment will cost before they sign a contract.
|
| > _interacting with capital is a cynical act._
|
| Your use of "cynical" is in a different category than
| what I was describing above. If we go with your
| definition, there is no reason to differentiate between
| bespoke pricing and up-front published pricing.
| nickpsecurity wrote:
| I think your argument is supported by the fact that many
| companies, in and outside of AI, have pricing upfront.
| That's for cloud platforms, OS's, frameworks like Sciter,
| shrink-wrap, semi-custom with value adds ("starts
| at..."), per-token pricing on models, etc.
|
| Then, some companies wont give the slightest hint of
| pricing unless we talk to their paid salespeople. It's
| definitely a game to extract more money out of you. While
| they may or may not, they often ignore low-volume
| customers who could easily buy the product if it was on
| an online store. Your skepticism is warranted.
| haswell wrote:
| > _While they may or may not, they often ignore low-
| volume customers who could easily buy the product if it
| was on an online store. Your skepticism is warranted._
|
| Setting aside any qualms about how the pricing is
| published, if a business chooses a strategy in which they
| focus on large customers and choose not to take on small
| customers, why is this an issue? Especially when the
| market is filled with alternatives?
|
| The support model, predictability of yearly renewals,
| per-customer overhead, etc. look quite different when
| selling to larger customers vs. small/low-volume
| customers.
| nickpsecurity wrote:
| It depends on one's moral philosophy. One kind would see
| it as discrimination with a negative, long-term impact on
| people and markets. Others would say they can do whatever
| they want. Subjectivists and capitalists would encourage
| them to do so to maximize selfish gains, esp money and
| power.
|
| If about selfish gain, then you should have no concern
| with people calling out their practice to warn others.
| They're doing what they want to do. They're also helping
| others with a warning to avoid harms, like lock-in and
| overcharging, that are more likely with "call us for a
| quote" type companies. The warnings are also market
| signals for buyers.
|
| In my case, I also tell people to encourage good
| practices like having prices up. Posts like mine might
| also inspire regulations that force prices to be shared
| ahead of time. They might also inspire people to use or
| develop lock-in-free alternatives which some out there
| are doing.
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| Also not only just establishing human relationships,
| sometimes software might not be available at all for plug
| and play and require client level tuning to be effective.
| Even in cursor, setting up a good .cursorrules seems to
| have quite a big effect.
|
| I don't think "call us" is an effective inbound sales
| tactic though, but Mistral does have folks in sales who
| can do outbound sales.
| haswell wrote:
| This is a key point. A customer that buys $100K+ worth of
| software is automatically a future debook risk if they
| can't/don't implement it successfully and start seeing
| value right away.
|
| The high touch approach ensures they're getting support
| at every step of the way and increases the chances that
| they'll use the software and renew later.
|
| I'm not sure how many of these factors are in play for
| Mistral, but to your point, it's easy to imagine some
| scenarios.
| Kiro wrote:
| You're not the target audience.
| tootie wrote:
| If you're buying actual business critical software, you
| always want a signed contract. Even if they have
| transparent pricing and a checkout form. Most of these
| services will reserve the right to terminate service if
| they detect any violation of terms. A signed contract
| usually precludes them from doing that.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| That's the idea, they are trying to have your boss force
| you to look at such software.
| efsavage wrote:
| The higher up the food chain you can go the more effective this
| is. Someone who thinks that negotiating is part of their job
| and/or persona is more willing to call the place they think
| they can get a deal on rather than the fixed price offering.
|
| Whether they're correct is a separate question, but it's an
| effective strategy if you're targeting that buyer.
| bdcravens wrote:
| Presumably their market is different than the typical developer
| or low-level manager armed with with a shadow IT company card.
| fazkan wrote:
| yup, got lost as well. Is it like a VS-code, continue
| alternative?
| coolgoose wrote:
| Pricing is worse than contact us, it's contact us and tell us
| your company size and revenue wtf Mistral, I wanted to maybe pick
| this up, as we're an european company and I want an European ai
| company to succeed but this is ridiculous
| conception wrote:
| OpenAI will not sell you enterprise unless you can bring in a
| certain amount of money. Same for Anthropic. Demand is too high
| for small potatoes.
| themanmaran wrote:
| Yea but for Mistral it's not just the enterprise plan. It's
| all variants of the "Mistral Code". So pretty useless to
| launch on HN if the only CTA is booking a demo.
| bdcravens wrote:
| They aren't "launching" on HN. The user that shared this
| link is well known as a bulk submitter.
| Keyframe wrote:
| We ought all to write this down and remember it well when the
| tide changes.
| coolgoose wrote:
| Yea but this little tator just wanted to use the coding
| agent, I don't expect enterprise features. Unfortunately
| there's no alternative to enterprise, so no way to support an
| European alternative :)
| tormeh wrote:
| Mistral lags behind on model quality. Seems like they want to
| focus more on customization and customer relations. If they had a
| leading model they'd probably have transparent pricing.
| esafak wrote:
| They could get away with 'contact us' if they were leaders.
| Maybe they're courting the EU-only segment.
| tormeh wrote:
| It's the other way around - everybody wants to create
| products with mass appeal and have low marginal costs and
| print money. The people who can't manage to do that go the
| consultancy route and add "contact us" under their pricing.
| bossyTeacher wrote:
| N/A
| Tokumei-no-hito wrote:
| nothing about this shit page is "obvious". learn about CTA
| because this isn't it.
| bcye wrote:
| The extension seems to be enterprise only.
|
| https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=mistrala...
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Is it?
|
| Mistral Code is available with enterprise deployments.
|
| Contact our team to get started.
| Toritori12 wrote:
| Are you sure what are you saying? The VSCode extension link [0]
| also redirect to the enterprise version, with no other option
| being available.
|
| 0:
| https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=mistrala...
| AstroBen wrote:
| I don't see any options for Pro or Team licenses for Mistral
| Code. That's only chat
|
| Seems they're purely targeting this towards enterprise
| b0a04gl wrote:
| it's wild cause the underlying tech might be sick but this
| enterprise gatekeeping ruins the whole arc. not every dev wants
| to fake a cto title just to see a pricing page.. tbh at this
| point just put a playground, let people touch it, break it, love
| it. if it's good, it spreads. no need to run it like you're
| guarding the source of life.
| koakuma-chan wrote:
| > it's wild cause the underlying tech might be sick
|
| How is their underlying tech different from any other AI VSCode
| extension?
| b0a04gl wrote:
| maybe it's a leaner model actually tuned for coding, not just
| another wrapper. fast, scoped, trained right and but zero
| clarity. all potential, no real explanation.
| koakuma-chan wrote:
| "Advanced models such as Codestral and Devstral under the
| hood"
| behnamoh wrote:
| IDK man, I liked their API for a while due to its low latency
| but after a few requests the API crashes with 90%
| probability.
| ivape wrote:
| The underlying tech is the same exact stuff as the other
| frontier models.
| flakiness wrote:
| Instruct "add docstrings" to JS code :shrug:
| joshstrange wrote:
| This is a little embarrassing and I'm a little shocked HN hasn't
| flagged it to death.
|
| I seriously doubt Mistral was able to create something actually
| useful (or at least better than Aider/Claude Code/etc) and hiding
| behind enterprise sales is cowardly. Surely anyone with half a
| brain isn't going to roll the dice on something completely
| untested and coming from a company like Mistral. They have no
| track record in this area and their models aren't considered
| SOTA.
| tensor wrote:
| While enterprise stuff is dead on arrival, their models for OCR
| and niche languages are indeed SOTA. Also, their local/small
| models are likely SOTA too if you are running in a constrained
| environment.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| > Surely anyone with half a brain isn't going to roll the dice
|
| the evidence points to the empty half, then
| e-max wrote:
| What are the alternatives? Let's say you're something like
| Deutsche Bank and you need an AI solution for your dev team
| that is fully compliant with EU privacy laws.
| atonse wrote:
| Same as others have said, with consumers wanting to try 20
| different models all the time, you have to reduce the friction of
| trying out the model.
|
| I hope this is just a huge mistake that they aren't allowing
| anyone to actually try it.
|
| Word of mouth from HN and others (not just advertising a link or
| press release) is how I've started to use about pretty much every
| single AI feature I use.
|
| Assuming this isn't a mistake, it says that this company has the
| wrong management/leadership structure if they think they can sell
| a brand new developer focused coding tool without letting actual
| developers try it. Maybe we don't know something?
| whiplash451 wrote:
| Poolside does the same thing, though
| qwertox wrote:
| How will companies engage with Mistral if their developers can't
| just install the thing and test it?
|
| --
|
| Here's a FAQ for Mistral Code:
| https://help.mistral.ai/en/collections/732571-mistral-code
|
| For example: https://help.mistral.ai/en/articles/333875-do-i-
| need-an-acti...
|
| > Do I need an active subscription to use Mistral Code?
|
| > At the moment, Mistral Code is a premium feature only avaible
| to Enterprise customers.
|
| > This means that to activate and use Mistral Code, your
| organization needs to have an active Enterprise agreement with
| Mistral AI that includes access to this tool.
|
| > Individual users within such organizations can then log in on
| their own and use the extension autonomously, provided they've
| been attributed a Mistral Code seat by their organization's
| administrator (see How to manage Mistral Code seats for more
| details).
| speerer wrote:
| > Mistral Code Enterprise is a fork of Continue. All due credit
| to the original creators of Continue.
|
| Source:
| https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=mistrala...
|
| Link destination: https://www.continue.dev/
| tensor wrote:
| Interesting. So if you just configure continue with Mistral
| Medium 3 as the chat model and codestral as the autocomplete,
| you probably have exactly this. This is the setup I already
| use.
| speerer wrote:
| If that were the case, then the posted URL would be pure
| hype. I think it's more likely that they've developed
| something that is more bespoke than that. It's totally too
| hard to say though.
| tensor wrote:
| Knowing the enterprise space, my guess is that the only
| real changes are hardcoding continue to use only Mistral,
| and tying it into some sort of central enterprise licensing
| service. Holding back some novel models just for enterprise
| use seems unlikely, as does developing some novel agentic
| capabilities within Continue.
|
| Enterprise deals are usually around compliance and security
| primarily. Companies want centralized billing and to be
| sure that their developers only use "sanctioned" AI and
| other tech.
|
| Who knows though with that contact us sales wall.
| ttoinou wrote:
| Interesting, why do you use those models ? They feel inferior
| tensor wrote:
| Originally as an experiment in using non-US services, as my
| company is not a US company and the possibility of tariffs
| on digital services is not at all unrealistic. The exercise
| was really enlightening. Not to derail the conversation the
| TLDR was that in some areas it was easy to move off US
| services, while in others (github) there are almost no
| alternatives.
|
| I do have access to US models via Kagi to play around with
| and use for things Mistral doesn't work on. I've been
| meaning to try command a too, but haven't gotten around to
| it. I will say that the new mistral medium model is
| surprisingly good, though I've only just started using it.
| Codestral is definitely behind other models.
| killerstorm wrote:
| The page suggests it's possible to fine-tune models on your
| code base
| tensor wrote:
| That's very possible. You can already do that via the
| platform api easily (just feeding it your github project),
| so a light UI around that api would be very easy.
| helloplanets wrote:
| Well that tidbit of information was definitely sweeped under
| the rug.
|
| Strikes me as a weird combo to have a fork of a VS
| Code/JetBrains extension be a completely walled off enterprise
| only deal. Any other apps out there having success with this
| sort of model?
| behnamoh wrote:
| This is why I don't like open sourcing my projects anymore.
| Someone else with more resources just forks it and makes
| profits, thinking that merely acknowledging me pays my bills.
|
| For years, ollama didn't acknowledge llama.cpp and r/localllama
| found it weird until they finally mentioned llama.cpp on their
| page, but the damage is done: most apps that support local LLMs
| only support ollama or LM Studio API, not the original
| llama.cpp.
| segmondy wrote:
| then don't. the point of open source is not to earn money or
| profit. it's to have the software open so people can inspect
| it, be inspired by it, trust it, modify it without contacting
| you and possibly copy it. imagine sharing your idea with the
| world but not wanting anyone to implement or capitalize on
| it. it's an impossible ask.
|
| i'm a bald head grey beard, at least in the 90's when we
| shared software it was for the reasons we outlined, there was
| no github stars, there was no trying to line a job. it was a
| true gift and pay it forward sort of thing to the world. it's
| been almost lost due to money, if you need to earn a living,
| start a business, get a job and make your open source project
| a hobby. don't mix them together.
| behnamoh wrote:
| > at least in the 90's when we shared software it was for
| the reasons we outlined...
|
| With all due respect, that's not how most open source
| software is today [1]. A lot of CS students on the job
| market _need_ Github stars or green tiles in case the
| employers check their page. So many open source projects
| are done only to boost resumes, not for the reasons you
| mentioned. Not to mention a lot of projects start as open
| source to lure users, only to become closed at some point
| (the notorious langchain is one example).
|
| [1]: with the exception of some huge projects like ffmpeg,
| llama.cpp, etc.
| freedomben wrote:
| > _This is why I don 't like open sourcing my projects
| anymore. Someone else with more resources just forks it and
| makes profits, thinking that merely acknowledging me pays my
| bills._
|
| Then I would submit that you are picking the wrong license.
| The whole point of the GPL/AGPL family of licenses is to
| ensure that they can't just do this. They will be required to
| publish their changes, which benefits the original project
| (you). It's not a perfect solution, but it helps a great
| deal. The answer to this problem is not to close up and/or go
| proprietary.
| novaleaf wrote:
| The MPL 2.0 is a great compromise. it's basically as
| permissive as the MIT, but the source code must be made
| available.
|
| https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/mozilla-public-
| license-2-0...
| GuB-42 wrote:
| Choose your license well. If you are using a permissive
| licence (MIT, Apache, BSD, etc...) you are begging for it. If
| that's what you want (and it may be what you want), go for
| it, but don't expect it to pay the bills.
|
| If you are using a copyleft license, especially AGPL, you may
| not get paid either, but you may get valuable contributions
| in return. It is also a good way to avoid having big
| companies profit from your work, if that's what you want.
|
| If you want to make money but still want to open source, use
| a non-free "source available" licence (ex: "non-commercial").
| They tend to be unpopular in the open source community and it
| is probably not the best way to get known.
|
| And then you can have dual-licences, like GPL + commercial.
| Qt is probably the most popular software using that scheme.
|
| But I don't really understand the people who publish software
| under a permissive licences and get forked by some tech giant
| and complain. That's what permissive licenses are for!
| abnercoimbre wrote:
| From the POV of an indie dev selling closed-source
| binaries, would a source-available license gain any
| goodwill in this space? And how would you tackle pricing?
| GuB-42 wrote:
| I don't really have a say since I don't buy nor sell
| software. As a technical guy, I may have an influence,
| but usually, finance decides and not always the way I'd
| like.
|
| That being said, I highly value having access to the
| source code, even under a restrictive license. The source
| code is the best documentation, it doesn't lie. Also
| being able to make small changes, recompile with
| different libraries, etc... but for me, the
| "documentation" aspect is the most important. I don't do
| security, but I guess being able to audit the code is a
| good thing too.
|
| For me, open source goes beyond the "freedom" aspect.
| Also, AFAIK, most commercial game engines are "source
| available" too.
| overfeed wrote:
| > But I don't really understand the people who publish
| software under a permissive licences and get forked by some
| tech giant and complain
|
| They want to have their cake and eat it.
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| This is completely within your control:
|
| - If your primary goal is to release open software that stays
| open, then release under a copyleft license (GPL)
|
| - If your primary goal is to release software for no-strings-
| attached use (including incorporation into commercial
| services) then use a permissive license (MIT, BSD, etc.)
| colechristensen wrote:
| >Mistral Code Enterprise is a fork of Continue. All due credit to
| the original creators of Continue.
|
| Here's the problem with AI company revenue, I want this to be
| local, Continue is open source, my company laptop is powerful
| enough to run a usefully sized LLM locally more or less just as
| fast, and there are plenty of open models available publicly
| (including by Mistral, latest dev related called devstral).
|
| As hardware progresses and LLM efficiency increases, I really
| don't think LLM programming has any future doing remote execution
| unless maybe as a chatbot kind of experience, but definitely not
| in an IDE.
|
| Putting together a good developer experience with the open-ish
| and free-ish things available is still an exercise in cobbling a
| bunch of things together, but it's going to be streamlined soon
| and finding a way to compete with "zero cost and local" is going
| to be very hard for AI businesses.
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| Why are all these code assistants apps coming out now? Is it
| because it takes two years to make these apps? Or is it because
| LLM performance is plateauing so the way to capture more of the
| market is via these apps?
| jacooper wrote:
| Ai labs are moving up the chain, the money is in the
| application layer.
|
| It's also a way to have some sort of lock in.
| kardos wrote:
| because it's a much better experience than copy-pasting into a
| webapp
| mirekrusin wrote:
| Do they know all this stuff (agentic coding, mcp integration etc)
| is available through zed + ollama for free?
| hu3 wrote:
| Same for VSCode which is ubiquitous and offers free Github
| Copilot quotas with SoTA models, for 6 months now:
|
| https://code.visualstudio.com/blogs/2024/12/18/free-github-c...
|
| Mistral needs to realize they don't stand a chance against AI
| giants that are giving out stuff for free or nearly free.
| mwigdahl wrote:
| I think the main differentiator here is the local installability
| and customizability. They're clearly targeting orgs that can't or
| won't use the actual cutting edge agentic models on the market
| for security or other reasons. Those places are going to
| need/want to work with a full enterprise sales pipeline, do the
| security reviews, BAAs, etc.
|
| "Contact Us" is a dealbreaker for a lot of orgs, but for the ones
| that are the real intended customers here it's not a huge
| impediment.
| kardos wrote:
| I'd like to try it, but enterprise only?
| KolmogorovComp wrote:
| How is this different than using aider-chat with mistral as the
| backend llm?
| helloplanets wrote:
| It's a fork of Continue, so you can basically just compare the
| features to Aider here: https://github.com/continuedev/continue
| dom96 wrote:
| There is so many of these at this point, is there a page anywhere
| that has a nice table comparing all of them with their
| features/pricing?
| anonymousDan wrote:
| What's the best set of vim plugins for llm coding?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-04 23:01 UTC)