This line of thinking I feel like assumes it's the only program running on your computer. Using less of my CPU and memory means my computer can do more things in parallel, or even run more instances of the harness. My laptop is sweating when I got 5+ claude code sessions running.

Is it actually claude using those CPU cycles though, or the agent running test suites and what not?

Honestly I would not be surprised when it actually IS claude using those resources... It is very clearly vibed

I haven't monitored CPU usage so closely, but seems to get heavy with basic tool calls and editing. Memory usage definitely is out of hand, have an idle session right now eating 500MB

Coding agents have been been such a blessing for my Emacs setup. Only getting more psyched about emacs. It was pretty good before but my elisp skills never really advanced much beyond gluing together existing libraries and copy pasted snippets. Now I'm having a blast vibecoding tools I could only dream of before, beyond what I even knew was possible.

Yup. When you give an LLM a "true" REPL, it stops guessing and starts empirically assessing the situation and achieves results faster, costing you far less tokens. And when you have something like Emacs - a malleable substrate you can programmatically change inside-out, it gives you immense capabilities to shape your environment, truly dynamically.

You just don't inject the real secret unless hostname/whatever rule matches the request, right? I don't know if that's how this works but it's my assumption.

On the Docker DevRel team... yes! This is it. The secret is injected only into headers in which the hostname matches.

There's also an ability to create kits where you can setup credential injection into other services as well.

I'm inspired by this website. It's incredible.

There is value for the person maintaining this library cause they want it that way. If you develop a useful library and give it away for free then all power to you if you want to rearrange the furniture every 6 months. I'll roll with it.

I definitely agree with the sentiment that people working for free can do whatever the heck they want.

But if you're trying to help your users and grow your project, I think GP's advice is sound.

You are, of course, correct.

But the fact that they made a new release with it undeprecated shows they _do_ care about their users (direct and indirect), and at least from my point of view (both from the Python ecosystem and the browser ecosystem) this was a pretty foreseeable outcome.

> If you develop a useful library and give it away for free then all power to you if you want to rearrange the furniture every 6 months.

That would make it no longer a useful library

A good query builder is more important than ORM imo. That's what I like about sqlalchemy. The query builder pretty much maps 1:1 to SQL and you can use it with or without the ORM mapping. Most of my projects have a mix of both along with plain SQL for some of the meatier queries.

A good query builder is more important than ORM imo. That's what I like about sqlalchemy. The query builder pretty much maps 1:1 to SQL and you can use it with or without the ORM mapping. Most of my projects have a mix of both along with plain SQL for some of the meatier queries.