What I find frustrating is that Cody is doing deterministic language-specific tricks that don't depend on the underlying LLM, so why not just give a list of all the languages you did deterministic tricks for and call that the supported languages? Why be vague? Why deflect to the underlying LLM to encourage people to try your product with languages you won't do any work to support?
Claiming it works on "all programming languages" is lazy and dishonest, and clearly false. There's nothing magical about LLMs that relieves software developers of the duty to specify the limitations of their software.
Nothing here is dishonest. We’re open about the limitations of the LLM being the main determining factor, and the numerous languages we’ve prioritized making it work well on. I see your point about not mentioning “etc.” in the shell scripting parenthetical. Will update.
But this test didn't seem to include TypeScript so it's obviously not comprehensive. I'm not convinced this information is actually in one place.
That link to the list of supported languages is broken. I couldn't find a similar file elsewhere in the repo: maybe the list got folded up into a function in another file? Also a bit annoying that I couldn't find the info on the company's website (though I gave up pretty quickly).