[dhung]

Daniel from Kite here. TabNine is great! And at the end of the day, Kite's completions and TabNine serve the same purpose. However there are a couple of differences in how we designed Kite vs TabNine.

First, the most important consideration for us was if our completions model could provide a good user experience 1) locally and 2) with minimal CPU and memory usage footprint. While we're constantly tuning the product's performance, Kite already uses less memory and CPU than TabNine. We know how important it is to save resources (and battery life!) when you're developing, so this was a huge sticking point for us.

Second, we've also put a ton of thought into dealing with the visual noise that completions of this nature introduce. The completions that are predicted by models such as Kite's and TabNine's can sometimes be irrelevant or redundant, so it's important to design filters that reduce the amount of what we call "low value" completions shown so that developers are less distracted. In Python, we have a best-in-class static analysis engine that we use to filter out low value completions. We don't have our own proprietary JS static analysis engine yet, but we've done some UX "hacks" to make sure Kite's JS completions aren't redundant and don't crowd out other completions the user may find useful e.g. native completions from the IDE.

Third, (and this is a point mainly for Python), is that Kite is much more than just completions. We also provide help for calling functions, instant documentation and we have some more features in the works. Completions certainly help developers physically write code, but we know that "writing code" also includes a lot of reading, debugging, etc. So we're trying to build a product that helps out developers in all phases.