81–90 of 405 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you find this to still be true with the Sonnet 4.5 model?
Yes. Sadly. And it really does make me sad. I was rooting for Anthropic. Still kinda am.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you share an example of the tasks you found Codex being much better? From my experience Claude Code is much better.
I can not. We're all racing very hard to take full advantage of these new capabilities before they go mainstream. And to be honest, sharing problem domains that are particularly attractive would be sharing too much. Go forth and experiment. Have fun with it. You'll figure it out pretty fast. You can read my other post here about the kinds of problem spaces I'm looking at.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you share an example of the tasks you found Codex being much better? From my experience Claude Code is much better.
I can not. We're all racing very hard to take full advantage of these new capabilities before they go mainstream. And to be honest, sharing problem domains that are particularly attractive would be sharing too much. Go forth and experiment. Have fun with it. You'll figure it out pretty fast. You can read my other post here about the kinds of problem spaces I'm looking at.
Edit: I'd like to reply to this comment in particular but can't in a threaded reply, so will do that here: "Ah, super secret problem domains that have been thoroughly represented in the LLM training data. Nice."
This exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of why coding agents powered by LLMs are such a game changer.
The assumption this poster is making is that LLMs are regurgitating whole cloth after being trained on whole cloth.
This is a common mistake among lay people and non-practitioners. The reality is that LLMs have gained the ability to program, by learning from the code of others. Much like a human would learn from the code of others, and then be able to create a completely novel application.
The difference between a human programmer an an agentic coder is that the agent has much broader and deeper expertise across more programming languages, and understands more design patterns, more operating systems, more about programming history, etc etc and it uses all this knowledge to fulfill the task you've set it to. That's not possible for any single human.
It's important for the poster to take two realities on board: Firstly, agentic coding agents are not regurgitating whole cloth from whole cloth. Instead they are weaving new creations because they have learned how to program. Secondly, agentic coding agents have broader and deeper knowledge than any human that will ever exist, and they never tire, and their mood and energy level never changes. In fact that improves on a continuous basis as the months go by and progress continues. This means we can, as individual practitioners or fast moving teams, create things that were never before possible for us without raising huge amounts of money and hiring large very expensive teams, and then having the overhead of lining everyone up behind a goal AND dealing with the human issues that arise, including communication overhead.
This is a very exciting time. Especially if you're curious, energetic, and are willing to suspend disbelief to go and take a look.
Does this work inside docker containers like Codex? Stuff like `testcontainers` is unusable with that architecture because you need access to docker itself.
Nit about doing your AI interfaces on the Web: I really want claude.ai and chatgpt.com to offer a standard username+password login without 2FA. The kind my privacy-friendly browser of short-lived sessions can complete in a couple clicks, like for most other SaaSes, and then I'm in and using the tool. I don't want to leak data either way by using some "let's throw SSO from a sketchy adtech company into the trust loop"…
The current claude.ai signin mechanism is rather annoying.
We were heavy users of Claude Code ($70K+ spend per year) and have almost completely switched to codex CLI. I'm doing massive lifts with it on software that would never before have been feasible for me personally, or any team I've ever run. I'll use Claude Code maybe once every two weeks as a second set of eyes to inspect code and document a bug, with mixed success. But my experience has been that initially Claude Co…
Initially, I found Codex CLI with GPT-5 to be a substitute for Claude Code - now GPT-5 Codex materially surpasses it in my line of work, with a huge asterisk. I work in a niche industry, and Codex has generally poor domain understanding of many of the critical attributes and concepts. Claude happens to have better background knowledge for my tasks, so I've found that Sonnet 4.5 with Claude Code generally does a better job at scaffolding any given new feature. Then, I call in Codex to implement actual functionality since Codex does not have the "You're absolutely right" and mocked/placeholder implementation issues of CC, and just generally writes clean, maintainable, well-planned code. It's the first time I've ever really felt the whole "it's as good as a senior engineer" hype - I think, in most cases, GPT5-Codex finally is as good as a senior engineer for my specific use case.
I think Codex is a generally better product with better pricing, typically 40-50% cheaper for about the same level of daily usage for me compared to CC. I agree that it will take a genuinely novel and material advancement to dethrone Codex now. I think the next frontier for coding agents is speed. I would use CC over Codex if it was 2x or 3x as fast, even at the same quality level. Otherwise, Codex will remain my workhorse.
I'll try this, but the grounding seems crucial for these LLMs to deliver results that are fewer shot than otherwise.
We were heavy users of Claude Code ($70K+ spend per year) and have almost completely switched to codex CLI. I'm doing massive lifts with it on software that would never before have been feasible for me personally, or any team I've ever run. I'll use Claude Code maybe once every two weeks as a second set of eyes to inspect code and document a bug, with mixed success. But my experience has been that initially Claude Co…
AI coding should be tightly in the inner dev loop! PRs are a bad way to review and iterate on code. They are a last line of defense, not the primary way to develop.
Give me an isolated environment that is one click hooked up to Cursor/VSCode Remote SSH. It should be the default. I can't think of a single time that Claude or any other AI tool nailed the request on the first try (other than trivial things). I always need to touch it up or at least navigate around and validate it in my IDE.
We’re moving almost entirely to Codex, first because often it’s just better, and second because it’s much cheaper. It’s a bet that they’re better now, but given capacity and funding, they’ll be better later too. The only edge Claude has is context window, which we do sometimes hit, but I’m sure that gap will close.