221–230 of 431 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They removed the /model option where you can select Opus to plan and Sonnet to execute. But you can still Shift + Tab to cycle between auto-accept and plan mode.
You can use `/model opusplan` to get that behaviour back though if you do want Opus for planning and Sonnet for editing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unfortunately, they removed Plan mode WTF. Terrible decision if true. I don't see that in the changelog though
No. Plan mode still works fine. They just changed it so you can't set it to use Opus in planning mode... it uses Sonnet 4.5 for both. Which makes sense Iif it really is a stronger and cheaper model.
> 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'm currently using Goose[1]. My brother in law uses Claude Code and he likes it. It makes me wonder if I'm missing anything. Can anyone tell me if there's any reason I should switch to Claude Code, or comparisons between the two? 1: https://block.github.io/goose/
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…
Something I've seen discussed very little is that Claude Code can be opened in a directory tree of any type of document you like (reports, spreadsheets, designs, papers, research, ...) and you can play around in all sorts of ways. Anthropic themselves hint at this by saying their whole organisation uses it, but the `Code` moniker is probably limiting adoption. They could release a generalised agent with a friendlier…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> IMPORTANT: DO NOT ADD * ANY** COMMENTS unless asked* Interesting. This was in the old 1.x prompt, removed for 2.0. But CC would pretty much always add comments in 1.x, something I would never request, and would often have to tell it to stop doing (and it would still do it sometimes even after being told to stop).
I can't decide if I like this change or not, tbh. I almost always delete the comments Claude adds, to be sure - but at the same time they seem to provide a sort of utility for me as I read through the generated code. They also act, in a funny way, as a kind of checklist as I review changes - I want them all cleaned up (or maybe edited and left in place) before I PR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Avoiding comments is an exercise in thinking how to rename or refactor a function, or a variable in such a way that a junior developer will be able to read it like prose, and immediately understand what's going on. It's cognitively stressing, but is beneficial for juniors, and developers new to the codebase, just as it is for senior developers to reduce the mental overhead for the reader. It's always good to spend an…
This is awfully purist. I think a happy medium of "comment brevity, and try thinking of a clearer way to do something instead of documenting the potentially unnecessary complexity with a comment" would be good. I don't know where this "comments are instant technical debt" meme came from, because it's frankly fucking stupid, especially in the age of being able to ask the LLM "please find any out-of-date comments in th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't decide if I like this change or not, tbh. I almost always delete the comments Claude adds, to be sure - but at the same time they seem to provide a sort of utility for me as I read through the generated code. They also act, in a funny way, as a kind of checklist as I review changes - I want them all cleaned up (or maybe edited and left in place) before I PR.
Wouldn't it stand to reason that they would provide a sort of utility for a collegue as they read through the generated code.
- like all documentation, they are prone to code rot (going out of date)
- ideally code should be obvious; if you need a comment to explain it, perhaps it's not as simple as it could be, or perhaps we're doing something hacky that we shouldn't
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Avoiding comments is an exercise in thinking how to rename or refactor a function, or a variable in such a way that a junior developer will be able to read it like prose, and immediately understand what's going on. It's cognitively stressing, but is beneficial for juniors, and developers new to the codebase, just as it is for senior developers to reduce the mental overhead for the reader. It's always good to spend an…
This is awfully purist. I think a happy medium of "comment brevity, and try thinking of a clearer way to do something instead of documenting the potentially unnecessary complexity with a comment" would be good. I don't know where this "comments are instant technical debt" meme came from, because it's frankly fucking stupid, especially in the age of being able to ask the LLM "please find any out-of-date comments in th…
Docstring comments are even worse, because it's so easy for someone to update the function and not the docstring, and it's very easy to miss in PR review
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…
They still don't have good integration with the web browser, if you are debugging frontend you need to carry screenshots manually, it cannot inspect the DOM, run snippets of code in the console, etc.