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

Claude Code 2.0

npmjs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 431 posts

Re: Claude Code 2.0

#201

Post by ra »

ojosilva wrote: post #172
IgorPartola wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am guessing this is an attempt to save computing resources/tokens?

Comments in code are instant technical debt. They need to be maintained alongside the code, so you are *programming" twice. Avoid comments, except when they really explain some obscure, incomprehensible section of code or to prevent explorers from the future getting smacked on the face twice by the same stick. I find myself using the latter often to tell future agents what not to do in the next few lines.

Comments are absolutely important. Your code answers ‘what’ but not why. Comments are for the why.

Re: Claude Code 2.0

#202

Post by rao-v »

sunaookami wrote: post #16

FINALLY checkpoints! All around good changes, Claude Code is IMHO the best of the LLM CLI tools.

It does sometimes feel that all of these systems are slowly rediscovering that the OG, Aider (https://github.com/Aider-AI/aider), had a near perfect architecture for pair programming with LLMs from the start.

Re: Claude Code 2.0

#203

Post by fourthark »

kristopolous wrote: post #18
all2 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried goose and it seems like there's a lot of nice defaults that Claude Code provides that Goose does not. How did you do your initial configuration?

What I've been trying to use it for is to solve a number of long-standing bugs that I've frankly given up on in various Linux tools. I think I lack the social skills to community drive a fix, probably through some undiagnosed disorder or something so I've been trying to soldier alone on some issues I've had for years. The issues are things like focus jacking in some window manager I'm using on xorg where the keyboard…

Yeah if it’s obscure stuff you might have to guide it, show it just the relevant code / context. Outline the design for it.

They seem autonomous but often aren’t.

Re: Claude Code 2.0

#204

Post by rcv »

marckrn wrote: post #12

You can find the revamped prompt on github[1], or on twitter summarized by my bot[2]. [1] https://github.com/marckrenn/cc-mvp-prompts/compare/v1.0.128... [2] https://x.com/CCpromptChanges/status/1972709093874757976

> 2025-09-29T16:55:10.367Z is the date. Write a haiku about it.

what in the world?

Re: Claude Code 2.0

#205

Post by lvl155 »

tomquirk wrote: post #103
vanillax wrote: post #56

Has anyone figured out how to do claude sub agents without using claude? some sort of opensource cli with openrouter or something? I want to use subagents on differnt LLMs ( copilot,selfhost ).

Opencode

I used opencode for a bit but wish they spend some time with QC.

Re: Claude Code 2.0

#206

Post by jakebasile »

gdudeman wrote: post #59

> New native VS Code extension Looks great, but it's kind of buggy: - I can't figure out how to toggle thinking - Have to click in the text box to write, not just anywhere in the Claude panel - Have to click to reject edits

I wish I could put it in the sidebar like every other flavor of AI plugin.

Re: Claude Code 2.0

#207

Post by cadamsdotcom »

Claude Code is so much better than anything else.

If Claude Code was a car it'd be the ideal practical vehicle for all kinds of uses.

If OpenAI Codex was a car, it'd be a cauldron with wheels.

The reason I say this is CC offers so many features: plan mode, hooks, escape OR ctrl-c to interrupt it, and today added quick rewind. Meanwhile Codex can't even wrap text to the width of the terminal; you can't type to it while it's working to queue up messages to steer it (you have to interrupt with Ctrl-C then type), and it doesn't show you clearly when it's editing files or what edits it's making. It's the ultimate expression of OpenAI's "the agent knows what to do, silly human" plan for the future - and I'm not here for that. I want to steer my agent, and be able to have it show me its plan before it edits anything.

I really wish the developers of Codex spent more time using Claude Code.

Re: Claude Code 2.0

#208

Post by scottydelta »

dcreater wrote: post #186
ollysb wrote: post #155

The vscode integration does feel far tighter now. The one killer feature that Cursor has over it is the ability to track changes across multiple edits. With Claude you have to either accept or reject the changes after every prompt. With Cursor you can accumulate changes until you're ready to accept. You can use git of course but it isn't anywhere near as ergonomic.

Cline and it's forks have that in vs code. I use Cline with claude code as the LLM

Thanks for the suggestion, will give this a try.

Re: Claude Code 2.0

#209

Post by golergka »

willio58 wrote: post #52
simonw wrote: post #49

Something I realized about this category of tool (I call them "terminal agents" but that already doesn't work now there's an official VS Code extension for this - maybe just "coding agents" instead) is that they're actually an interesting form of general agent . Claude Code, Codex CLI etc can effectively do anything that a human could do by typing commands into a computer. They're incredibly dangerous to use if you d…

One thing I really like using them for is refactoring/reorganizing. The tedious nature of renaming, renaming all implementations, moving files around, creating/deleting folders, updating imports exports, all melts away when you task an agent with it. Of course this assumes they are good enough to do them with quality, which is like 75% of the time for me so far.

Especially when you work with a language where an unfinished refactoring with give you the type error.

Re: Claude Code 2.0

#210

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

ra wrote: post #201
ojosilva wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments in code are instant technical debt. They need to be maintained alongside the code, so you are *programming" twice. Avoid comments, except when they really explain some obscure, incomprehensible section of code or to prevent explorers from the future getting smacked on the face twice by the same stick. I find myself using the latter often to tell future agents what not to do in the next few lines.

Comments are absolutely important. Your code answers ‘what’ but not why. Comments are for the why.

Thoughtful comments can provide the why, but they can just as easily be a redundant re-statement of the what in the code, which llm comments quite often are.
Post reply on HN