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

What makes Claude Code so damn good

minusx.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 322 posts

Re: What makes Claude Code so damn good

#31

Post by StephenAshmore »

syntaxing wrote: post #16

I don’t know if I’m doing something wrong. I was using Sonnet 4 with GitHub Copilot. Recently a week ago switched to Claude Code. I find GitHub Copilot solves problem and bugs way better than Claude Code. For some reason, Claude Code seems very lazy. Has anyone experience something similar?

It may be a configuration thing. I've found quite the opposite. Github Copilot using Sonnet 4 will not manage context very well, quite frequently resorting to running terminal commands to search for code even when I gave it the exact file it's looking for in the copilot context. Claude code, for me, is usually much smarter when it comes to reading code and then applying changes across a lot of files. I also have it integrated into the IDE so it can make visual changes in the editor similar to GitHub Copilot.

Re: What makes Claude Code so damn good

#32

Post by Keyframe »

alex1138 wrote: post #5

What do people think of Google's Gemini (Pro?) compared to Claude for code? I really like a lot of what Google produces, but they can't seem to keep a product that they don't shut down and they can be pretty ham-fisted, both with corporate control (Chrome and corrupt practices) and censorship

It's doing rather well at thinking, but not at coding. When it codes, often enough it runs in circles and ignores input. Where I find it useful is to read through larger codebases and distill what I need to find out from it. Even using gemini from claude to consult it for certain things. Opus is also like that btw, but a bit better at coding. Sonnet though, excels at coding.. from my experience though.

Re: What makes Claude Code so damn good

#33

Post by sdsd »

Oof, this comes at a hard moment in my Claude Code usage. I'm trying to have it help me debug some Elastic issues on Security Onion but after a few minutes it spits out a zillion lines of obfuscated JS and says:

  Error: kill EPERM
      at process.kill (node:internal/process/per_thread:226:13)
      at Ba2 (file:///usr/local/lib/node_modules/@anthropic-ai/claude-code/cli.js:506:19791)
      at file:///usr/local/lib/node_modules/@anthropic-ai/claude-code/cli.js:506:19664
      at Array.forEach ()
      at file:///usr/local/lib/node_modules/@anthropic-ai/claude-code/cli.js:506:19635
      at Array.forEach ()
      at Aa2 (file:///usr/local/lib/node_modules/@anthropic-ai/claude-code/cli.js:506:19607)
      at file:///usr/local/lib/node_modules/@anthropic-ai/claude-code/cli.js:506:19538
      at ChildProcess.W (file:///usr/local/lib/node_modules/@anthropic-ai/claude-code/cli.js:506:20023)
      at ChildProcess.emit (node:events:519:28) {
    errno: -1,
    code: 'EPERM',
    syscall: 'kill'
  }
I'm guessing one of the scripts it runs kills Node.js processes, and that inadvertantly kills Claude as well. Or maybe it feels bad that it can't solve my problem and commits suicide.

In any case, I wish it would stay alive and help me lol.

Re: What makes Claude Code so damn good

#34

Post by theptip »

BoorishBears wrote: post #13
dingnuts wrote: post #4

[flagged]

If you want to be really stringent, RAG originally referred to going from user query to retrieving information directly based on the query then passing it to an LLM: With CC the LLM is taking the raw user query then crafting its own searches But realistically lots of RAG systems have LLM calls interleaved for various reasons, so what they probably mean it not doing the usual chunking + embeddings thing.

Yeah, TFA clearly explains their point. They mean RAG=vector search, and contrast this with tool calling (eg Grep).

Re: What makes Claude Code so damn good

#35

Post by gervwyk »

We’re considering building a coding agent for Lowdefy[1], a framework that lets you build web apps with YAML config.

For those who’ve built coding agents: do you think LLMs are better suited for generating structured config vs. raw code?

My theory is that agents producing valid YAML/JSON schemas could be more reliable than code generation. The output is constrained, easier to validate, and when it breaks, you can actually debug it.

I keep seeing people creating apps with vibe coder tools but then get stuck when they need to modify the generated code.

Curious if others think config-based approaches are more practical for AI-assisted development.

[1] https://github.com/lowdefy/lowdefy

Re: What makes Claude Code so damn good

#36

Post by koakuma-chan »

alex1138 wrote: post #5

What do people think of Google's Gemini (Pro?) compared to Claude for code? I really like a lot of what Google produces, but they can't seem to keep a product that they don't shut down and they can be pretty ham-fisted, both with corporate control (Chrome and corrupt practices) and censorship

I don't think Gemini Pro is necessarily worse at coding, but in my experience Claude is substantially better at "terminal" tasks (i.e. working with the model through a CLI in the terminal) and most of the CLIs use Claude, see https://www.tbench.ai/leaderboard.

Re: What makes Claude Code so damn good

#37

Post by sixtyj »

sdsd wrote: post #33

Oof, this comes at a hard moment in my Claude Code usage. I'm trying to have it help me debug some Elastic issues on Security Onion but after a few minutes it spits out a zillion lines of obfuscated JS and says: Error: kill EPERM at process.kill (node:internal/process/per_thread:226:13) at Ba2 (file:///usr/local/lib/node_modules/@anthropic-ai/claude-code/cli.js:506:19791) at file:///usr/local/lib/node_modules/@anthro…

Jump to another LLM helps me to find what happened. *This is not a official advice :)

Re: What makes Claude Code so damn good

#38

Post by ec109685 »

gervwyk wrote: post #35

We’re considering building a coding agent for Lowdefy[1], a framework that lets you build web apps with YAML config. For those who’ve built coding agents: do you think LLMs are better suited for generating structured config vs. raw code? My theory is that agents producing valid YAML/JSON schemas could be more reliable than code generation. The output is constrained, easier to validate, and when it breaks, you can act…

I wouldn’t get hung up on one shotting anything. Output to a format that can be machine verified, ideally in a format there is plenty of industry examples for.

Then add a grader step to your agentic loop that is triggered after the files are modified. Give feedback to the model if there any errors and it will fix them.

Re: What makes Claude Code so damn good

#39

Post by [deleted] »

gervwyk wrote: post #35

We’re considering building a coding agent for Lowdefy[1], a framework that lets you build web apps with YAML config. For those who’ve built coding agents: do you think LLMs are better suited for generating structured config vs. raw code? My theory is that agents producing valid YAML/JSON schemas could be more reliable than code generation. The output is constrained, easier to validate, and when it breaks, you can act…

[deleted]

Re: What makes Claude Code so damn good

#40

Post by _1tem »

CC is so damn good I want to use its agent loop in my agent loop. I'm planning to build a browser agent for some specialized tasks and I'm literally just bundling a docker image with Claude Code and a headless browser and the Playwright MCP server.
Post reply on HN