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

91–100 of 336 posts

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

#91

Post by pests »

bratao wrote: post #5

From my use case, the Gemini 2.5 is terrible. I have a complex Cython code in a single file (1500 lines) for a Sequence Labeling. Claude and o3 are very good in improving this code and following the commands. The Gemini always try to do unrelated changes. For example, I asked, separately, for small changes such as remove this unused function, or cache the arrays indexes. Every time it completely refactored the code a…

> The Gemini always try to do unrelated changes. For example, I asked, separately, for small changes such as remove this unused function

For anything like this, I don’t understand trying to invoke AI. Just open the file and delete the lines yourself. What is AI going to do here for you?

It’s like you are relying 100% on AI when it’s a tool in your toolset.

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

#92

Post by pcwelder »

amazingamazing wrote: post #23

In before people post contradictory anecdotes. It would be more helpful if people posted the prompt, and the entire context, or better yet the conversation, so we can all judge for ourselves.

Gemini 2.5 pro hasn't been as good as Sonnet for me.

The prompt I have tried repeatedly is creating a react-vite-todo app.

It doesn't figure out tailwind related issues. Real chats:

Gemini: https://github.com/rusiaaman/chat.md/blob/main/samples/vite-...

Sonnet 3.7: https://github.com/rusiaaman/chat.md/blob/main/samples/vite-...

Exact same settings, using MCP server for tool calling, using OpenAI api interface.

PS: the formatting is off, but '#%%' starts a new block, view it in raw.

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

#93

Post by pests »

bratao wrote: post #22
ekidd wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you asking Gemini 2.5 to change existing code? With Claude 3.7, it's possible to use Claude Code, which gets "extremely fast but untrustworthy intern"-level results. Do you have a prefered setup to use Gemini 2.5 in a similar agentic mode, perhaps using a tool like Cursor or aider?

For all LLMs, I´m using a simple prompt with the complete code in triple quotes and the command at the end, asking to output the complete code of changed functions. Then I use Winmerge to compare the changes and apply. I feel more confident doing this than using Cursor.

Should really check out aider. Automates this but also does things like make a repo map of all your functions / signatures for non-included files so it can get more context.

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

#96

Post by snickell »

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.…

This is the smoothest tom sawyer move I've ever seen IRL, I wonder how many people are now grinding out your GTK4 port with our favorite LLM/system to see if it can. It'll be interesting to see if anyone gets something working with current-gen LLMs.

UPDATE: naive (just fed it your description verbatim) cline + claude 3.7 was a total wipeout. It looked like it was making progress, then freaked out, deleted 3/4 of its port, and never recovered.

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

#97

Post by larodi »

antirez wrote: post #78

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, ...

Is this to say that you're writing the code manually and having the model verify for various errors, or also employing the model for actual code work.

Do you instruct the code to write in "your" coding style?

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

#98

Post by acedTrex »

ttul wrote: post #79
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.

I think the "offer a PR I will accept is the kicker here, getting it 'done' is the easy part"

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

#99

Post by Jcampuzano2 »

redog wrote: post #24
bratao wrote: post #5

From my use case, the Gemini 2.5 is terrible. I have a complex Cython code in a single file (1500 lines) for a Sequence Labeling. Claude and o3 are very good in improving this code and following the commands. The Gemini always try to do unrelated changes. For example, I asked, separately, for small changes such as remove this unused function, or cache the arrays indexes. Every time it completely refactored the code a…

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.

If you don't mind me asking how do you go about this?

I hear people commonly mention doing this but I can't imagine people are manually adding every page of the docs for libraries or frameworks they're using since unfortunately most are not in one single tidy page easy to copy paste.

Post reply on HN