Kilocode is developing a new command-line tool called "Roo" designed to encompass the functionalities of both traditional CLIs and modern interactive tools like Fig. Roo aims to provide a seamless experience, allowing users to fluidly transition between typing commands and utilizing interactive elements like autocomplete, suggestions, and visual aids. The goal is to combine the speed and scriptability of CLIs with the user-friendliness and discoverability of graphical interfaces, creating a more efficient and intuitive command-line experience that caters to both novice and expert users. They are building upon the foundation of existing tools, incorporating successful aspects of both paradigms, and plan to open-source Roo in the future.
The blog post "Roo or Cline? We're building a superset" by Kilocode AI details the company's ambitious endeavor to create a unified command-line interface (CLI) tool that combines the strengths of both Roo and Cline, two existing Python-based CLI frameworks. The authors acknowledge the individual merits of each framework: Roo, known for its declarative syntax and ease of use, and Cline, lauded for its extensibility and performance driven by a compile-to-Python approach. Rather than forcing users to choose between these two distinct philosophies, Kilocode aims to synthesize a new tool, currently codenamed "Kilo CLI," that encapsulates the best aspects of both.
The post elaborates on the perceived shortcomings of Roo, particularly its reliance on dynamic execution, which can lead to performance bottlenecks and hinder static analysis. Conversely, Cline, while offering superior performance through compilation, can be less user-friendly due to its more complex structure and reliance on explicit type annotations. Kilo CLI seeks to bridge this gap by introducing a novel approach: compiling a user-friendly, declarative syntax, similar to Roo's, into highly optimized Python code, akin to Cline's methodology. This strategy, according to the authors, will provide the optimal balance of developer experience and execution efficiency.
Furthermore, the post outlines Kilocode's planned phased approach to development. The initial phase concentrates on achieving feature parity with Roo, ensuring a seamless transition for existing Roo users. Subsequent phases will incorporate advanced features inspired by Cline, such as static typing, improved error handling, and potential integration with other tools and ecosystems. The overarching goal is to create a comprehensive and powerful CLI framework that caters to a broad range of use cases, from simple scripting to complex application development. The post concludes with an invitation to the community to participate in shaping the future of Kilo CLI, suggesting that feedback and contributions are welcomed as they embark on this project.
Summary of Comments ( 25 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43642212
Hacker News users discuss the ambition of Roo and Cline, questioning the feasibility of creating a true "superset" of developer tools. Several commenters express skepticism about unifying diverse tools with vastly different functionalities and workflows. Some suggest focusing on specific niches or integrations rather than aiming for an all-encompassing solution. Concerns about vendor lock-in and the potential for a bloated, complex product are also raised. Others express interest in the project, particularly the proposed integration of static and dynamic analysis, and encourage the developers to prioritize a strong user experience. The need for clear differentiation from existing tools and demonstration of concrete benefits is highlighted as crucial for success.
The Hacker News post titled "Roo or Cline? We're building a superset" with the ID 43642212 has generated several comments discussing the proposed Roo programming language and its comparison to Cline.
Several commenters expressed skepticism about the value proposition of Roo. One commenter questioned the need for another language, especially one that seemed to be positioning itself as a "superset" of existing languages like Python and JavaScript. They argued that often such projects become overly complex and difficult to maintain, and wondered what specific problems Roo was trying to solve that couldn't be addressed by improving existing languages or tools. This sentiment was echoed by others who expressed a preference for focusing on improving existing ecosystems rather than creating new ones.
The maintainability of a language that combines Python, JavaScript and aims for native performance was also a concern. One commenter highlighted the difficulty of keeping such a project up-to-date with the evolution of its underlying components, suggesting it would be a significant ongoing effort.
Another point of discussion centered around the claimed performance benefits of Roo. Commenters requested benchmarks or more concrete evidence to support the claim of "native performance," especially given the complexity introduced by combining different language paradigms. The lack of open-sourcing also drew criticism, making it harder for the community to evaluate the claims and contribute.
Some commenters questioned the chosen name "Roo," finding it unmemorable or difficult to search for. Alternative suggestions were offered, highlighting the importance of a strong and easily searchable name for a new programming language.
There was interest in the potential of Roo, with some commenters appreciating the ambition of the project and expressing curiosity about its development. However, the overall sentiment leaned towards cautious skepticism, with many emphasizing the need for more concrete details and open-sourcing to gain wider community acceptance and support. The lack of specific use cases beyond general performance improvements also contributed to this skepticism.