Top
Best
New

Posted by yarapavan 16 hours ago

You said no MCP(earendil.com)
617 points | 344 commentspage 7
spence-s 13 hours ago|
This just reads like Pi is becoming Armins and Marios opinions on what a good harness is instead of letting us build our own with the features we want and need.

There were already tons of third party MCP extensions that were every bit as good as this half baked built in.

Already lots of code mode extensions too, which is also opinionated.

Sad to see Pi to go from being: "This harness is yours"

to

"Just another coding harness"

dpc_01234 5 hours ago||
As someone who maintains own coding harness, arguably more capable and powerful than Pi, I assure you the level of integration required to have something working really well nowadays goes against "this harness is yours" philosophy. "Codemode" completely changes the inter-workings of the harness, which spills all over everything else. And codemode is likely the inevitable future, as it's just much more efficient and powerful way for agents to do stuff. I'm planning to completely abandon non-codemode and make codemode the only "mode" in my harness as soon as open source models that I can run on my GPU can handle it well. I'm holding back as I don't want to deal with the complexity of having to support both.

> This just reads like Pi is becoming Armins and Marios opinions on what a good harness is instead of letting us build our own with the features we want and need.

Realistically it was always their harness. If you want "your own harness" you can always click the Fork button.

justinhj 9 hours ago||
That seems a bit unfair. The choice isn't between opinionated vs unopinionated, it's "which layer do the options live at?". The harness has to be somewhat opinionated about the implementation of the agent loop, otherwise what is the harness exactly. I guess the question is if I don't want the new "code mode" changes in the loop can I trivially ignore it, but it seems it has to be implemented in the core.
charcircuit 11 hours ago||
I thought the whole point of pi was to be minimal. Why are they adding features a user could create themselves? This just seems like the treadmill of endless bloat overwriting the projects principals.
Onavo 11 hours ago||
Maybe they can start on sandboxing next. Pi doesn't have a good sandboxing extension that offers Claude/Codex style auto approvals
gigel82 11 hours ago||
This is good news, I like Pi with local models, but the MCP needing an external plugin and extra "discovery" proxies was never smooth.
dncornholio 12 hours ago||
What's Pi? Oh an AI agent. Isn't MCP designed for agents? There's still some anti-MCP movement or something?

MCP is just REST with meta data folks. It's all just HTTP and JSON.

krzyk 12 hours ago|
Now it is http, but previously it was some kind of binary protocol. And it was ... statefull, which is mind blowing, why would it be in the first place.

Nowadays they moved to http and stateless.

croes 15 hours ago||
> The first thing to remember is that the world is not static

And you didn’t remember that when you said no to MCP?

No, no MCP for now?

0xbadcafebee 13 hours ago||
It is bizarre that Marco said MCP is hard to compose. It's like he doesn't understand how composability works.

Unix programs are said to be composable, in that you can combine them in different ways to get more complex and useful functionality. But the applications themselves are not composeable. They just take input, perform calculation, and return output. Each app has unique input and output, and none know about other apps. So how can they possibly work together?

Bash acts like a programming language, allowing you to write a new program on the fly. It is very lightweight, but gives enough functionality to do two things: 1) call arbitrary programs, 2) connect their inputs and outputs, 3) make decisions about how to do this to result in a novel solution. It uses Unix pipes to make writing the program easier, but actually it could work fine without pipes, reading/writing program input/output with files.

The important thing is bash is a "glue" program that ties together the other programs. Bash is what makes those programs composeable. That, and the Unix API (execve(), open(), read(), write(), close()) that allows making the call, passing input, reading output, in one standard way for all programs.

MCP is both the application to call, and the Unix API to call them. Your agent harness is bash. Codemode is certainly a neat/more efficient way to write the code, but it's not necessary. What's necessary is getting a very large library of programs, like Unix programs (find, cat, grep, sed, awk, tr, cut, sort, tail, head, etc) that each have powerful functionality. The more programs you have, the more your bash script can do to chain them together and get more powerful results.

LLMs only use Bash because they didn't yet have MCP and a large library of MCP programs. Bash is a stopgap solution. The future is MCP (or whatever replaxes it).

krzyk 12 hours ago|
MCP is only for agents, bash (and CLI) is for agents and people.
bbrks 12 hours ago||
Off-topic: But anybody else have a nasty taste in their mouth from seeing a company named after a Middle Earth entity now? It fucking sucks!
folayii 1 hour ago||
[dead]
shafreeck 11 hours ago|
[dead]
More comments...