Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs. Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Coding Comparison

composio.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 336 posts

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro vs. Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Coding Comparison

#71

Post by ldjkfkdsjnv »

AJ007 wrote: post #64
ldjkfkdsjnv wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah its not even close. In my mind, the 200$ a month could be 500 and I would still pay for it. There are many technical problems I have ran into, where I simply would not have solved the problem without it. I am building more complicated software than I ever have, and I have 10+ years of engineering experience in big tech

If you are in a developing country and making $500-$1000 a month doing entry level coding work then $200 is crazy. On the other hand, your employment at this point is entirely dependent on your employer having no idea what is going on, or being really nice to you. I've also heard complaints from people, in the United States, about not wanting to pay $20 a month for ChatGPT. If the work you are doing is that low value…

Yeah its funny because I know I could hire someone off upwork. But I prefer to just tell the model what to code and integrate its results, over telling another engineer what to do.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro vs. Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Coding Comparison

#72

Post by iammrpayments »

Kiro wrote: post #58
iammrpayments wrote: post #33

Theo video detected = opinion rejected Also I generally dislike thinking models for coding and prefer faster models, so if you have something easy gemini 2.0 is good

What's wrong with Theo?

Not only actively promotes React which is forgivable, but also every framework or unnecessary piece of npm software that pays him enough.

His videos also have 0 substance and now are mostly article reading, which is also forgivable if you add valuable input but that’s never the case with him.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro vs. Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Coding Comparison

#73

Post by mountainriver »

neal_ wrote: post #29

I was using gemini 2.5 pro yesterday and it does seem decent. I still think claude 3.5 is better at following instruction then the new 3.7 model which just goes ham messing stuff up. Really disappointed by Cursor and the Claude CLI tool, for me they create more problems then fix. I cant figure out how to use them on any of my projects with out them ruining the project and creating terrible tech debt. I really like th…

My whole team feels like 3.7 is a letdown. It really struggles to follow instructions as others are mentioning.

Makes me think they really just hacked the benchmarks on this one.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro vs. Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Coding Comparison

#74

Post by criddell »

qwertox wrote: post #13

Gemini is the only model which tells me when it's a good time to stop chatting because either it can't find a solution or because it dislikes my solution (when I actively want to neglect security). And the context length is just amazing. When ChatGPT's context is full, it totally forgets what we were chatting about, as if it would start an entirely new chat. Gemini lacks the tooling, there ChatGPT is far ahead, but a…

I asked Claude this weekend what it could tell me about writing Paint.Net plugins and it responded that it didn't know much about that:

> I'd be happy to help you with information about writing plugins for Paint.NET. This is a topic I don't have extensive details on in my training, so I'd like to search for more current information. Would you like me to look up how to create plugins for Paint.NET?

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro vs. Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Coding Comparison

#75

Post by arccy »

bilekas wrote: post #35
iammrpayments wrote: post #33

Theo video detected = opinion rejected Also I generally dislike thinking models for coding and prefer faster models, so if you have something easy gemini 2.0 is good

Theo has some strange takes for my liking but to flat out reject the opinion isn't the way to go. Thinking models are okay for larger codebases though where some more context is important, this ensures the results are a bit more relevant than say for example Copilot which seems to be really quick at generating some well known algorythms etc. They're just different tools for different jobs really.

rejecting an opinion doesn't mean you have to hold the opposite stance, just that their opinion should hold 0 weight.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro vs. Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Coding Comparison

#76

Post by simonw »

amarcheschi wrote: post #31
redog wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me I had to upload the library's current documentation to it because it was using outdated references and changing everything that was working in the code to broken and not focusing on the parts I was trying to build upon.

using outdated references and docs is something i've experienced more or less with every model i've tried, from time to time

That's expected, because they almost all have training cut-off dates from a year ago or longer.

The more interesting question is if feeding in carefully selected examples or documentation covering the new library versions helps them get it right. I find that to usually be the case.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro vs. Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Coding Comparison

#77

Post by dsign »

I guess depends on the task? I have very low expectations for Gemini, but I gave it a run with a signal processing easy problem and it did well. It took 30 seconds to reason through a problem that would have taken me between 5 to 10 minutes to reason. Gemini's reasoning was sound (but it took me a couple of minutes to decide that), and it also wrote the functions with the changes (which took me an extra minute to verify). It's not a definitive win in time, but at least there was an extra pair of "eyes"--or whatever that's called with a system like this one.

All in all, I think we humans are well on our way to become legal flesh[].

[] The part of the system to whip or throw in jail when a human+LLM commit a mistake.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro vs. Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Coding Comparison

#78

Post by antirez »

In complicated code I'm developing (Redis Vector Sets) I use both Claude 3.7 and Gemini 2.5 PRO to perform code reviews. Gemini 2.5 PRO can find things that are outside Claude abilities, even if Gemini, as a general purpose model, is worse. But It's inherently more powerful at reasoning on complicated code stuff, threading, logical errors, ...

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro vs. Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Coding Comparison

#79

Post by ttul »

phkahler wrote: post #55

Here is a real coding problem that I might be willing to make a cash-prize contest for. We'd need to nail down some rules. I'd be shocked if any LLM can do this: https://github.com/solvespace/solvespace/issues/1414 Make a GTK 4 version of Solvespace. We have a single C++ file for each platform - Windows, Mac, and Linux-GTK3. There is also a QT version on an unmerged branch for reference. The GTK3 file is under 2KLOC.…

Send the whole repo to AI Studio using my vibe coded tool `llm_globber` and let Gemini chew on it. You can get this done in a few hours.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro vs. Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Coding Comparison

#80

Post by runekaagaard »

cjonas wrote: post #46
neal_ wrote: post #29

I was using gemini 2.5 pro yesterday and it does seem decent. I still think claude 3.5 is better at following instruction then the new 3.7 model which just goes ham messing stuff up. Really disappointed by Cursor and the Claude CLI tool, for me they create more problems then fix. I cant figure out how to use them on any of my projects with out them ruining the project and creating terrible tech debt. I really like th…

My only experience is via cursor but I'd agree in that context 3.7 is worse than 3.5. 3.7 goes crazy trying to fix any little linter errors and often gets confused and will just hammer away, making things worse until I stop generation. I think if I let it continue it would probably proposed rm -rf and start over at some point :). Again, this could just have to do with the way cursor is prompting it.

I'm getting great and stable results with 3.7 on Claude desktop and mcp servers.

It feels like an upgrade from 3.5

Post reply on HN