211–220 of 322 posts
I've literally built the entire MVP of my startup on Claude Code and now have paying customers. I've got an existential worry that I'm going to have a SEV incident that will trigger a house of falling cards, but until then I'm constantly leveraging Claude for fixing security vulnerabilities, implementing test-driven-development, and planning out the software architecture in accordance with my long-term product roadma…
[flagged]
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 get it. The title says "What makes Claude Code so damn good", which implies that they will show how Claude Code is better than other tools, or just better in general. But they go about repeating the Claude Code documentation using different wording. Am I missing something here? Or is this just Anthropic shilling?
(blogpost author here) Haha, that's totally fair. I've read a whole bunch of posts comparing CC to other tools, or with a dump of the the architecture. This post was mainly for people who've used CC extensively, know for a fact that it is better and wonder how to ship such an experience in their own apps.
> "THIS IS IMPORTANT" is still State of the Art Had a similar problems until I saw the advice "Dont say what it shouldn't but focus on what it should". i.e. make sure when it reaches for the 'thing', it has the alternative in context. Haven't had those problems since then.
I mean, if advice like this worked, then why wouldn't Anthropic let the LLM say it, for instance?
I don't get it. The title says "What makes Claude Code so damn good", which implies that they will show how Claude Code is better than other tools, or just better in general. But they go about repeating the Claude Code documentation using different wording. Am I missing something here? Or is this just Anthropic shilling?
I’ve noticed that custom subagents in CC often perform noticeably worse than the main agent, even when told to use Opus and despite extreme prompt tuning. This seems to concur with the “keep it flat” logic here. But why should this be the case?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(blogpost author here) Haha, that's totally fair. I've read a whole bunch of posts comparing CC to other tools, or with a dump of the the architecture. This post was mainly for people who've used CC extensively, know for a fact that it is better and wonder how to ship such an experience in their own apps.
I've used Claude Code, Cursor, and Copilot is Vscode and I don't "know" that Claude Code is better apart from the fact that it runs in the terminal, which makes it a little faster but less ergonomic than tools running inside the editor. All of the context tricks can be done with Copilot instructions as well, so I simply can't see how Claude Code is superior.
Claude can run commands to search code, test compilation, and perform various other operations.
Unix is great because its commands are well-documented, and the training data is abundant with examples.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've used Claude Code, Cursor, and Copilot is Vscode and I don't "know" that Claude Code is better apart from the fact that it runs in the terminal, which makes it a little faster but less ergonomic than tools running inside the editor. All of the context tricks can be done with Copilot instructions as well, so I simply can't see how Claude Code is superior.
For code generation, nothing so far beats Opus. More likely than not it generated working code and fixed bugs that Gemini 2.5 pro couldn't solve or even Gemini Code Assist. Gemini Code Assist is better than 2.5 pro, but has way more limits per prompt and often truncates output.