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

Claude Code on the web

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 405 posts

Re: Claude Code on the web

#141

Post by vidarh »

extr wrote: post #63
simonw wrote: post #37

I had a preview of this over the weekend, notes here plus some example PRs: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Oct/20/claude-code-for-web/ It's really solid. It's effectively a web (and native mobile) UI over Claude Code CLI, more specifically "claude --dangerously-skip-permissions". Anthropic have recognized that Claude Code where you don't have to approve every step is massively more productive and interesting than the…

It’s interesting because I’ve slowly arrived at the opposite conclusion: for much of my practical day to day work, using CC with “allow edits” turned OFF results in a much better end product. I can correct it inline, I pseudo-review the code as it’s produced, etc etc. Codex is better for “fire and forget” features for sure. But Claude remains excellent at grokking intent for problems where you aren’t quite sure what…

It slows it down far too much for me. What I've found after swithcing to --dangerously-skip-permissions is that while the intermediate work product is often total junk, when I then start writing a message to tell Claude to switch approach, a large proportion of the time it has figured that out by itself before I'm finished writing the message.

So increasingly I let it run, and then review when it stops, and then I give it a proper review, and let it run until it stops again. It wastes far less of my time, and finishes new code much faster. At least for the things I've made it do.

Re: Claude Code on the web

#142

Post by grrowl »

jackconsidine wrote: post #121

> We were heavy users of Claude Code ($70K+ spend per year) and have almost completely switched to codex CLI Seeing comments like this all over the place. I switched to CC from Cursor in June / July because I saw the same types of comments. I switched from VSCode + Copilot about 8 months before that for the same reason. I remember being skeptical that this sort of thing was guerilla marketing, but CC was in fact bett…

OpenAI seems to limit how "hard" your gpt-5-codex can think depending on your subscription plan; whereas Anthropic/Claude only limits how much use you get. I evaluate Codex every month or so with a problem suited to it, but rarely gets merged over a version produced by Charlie (which yes is $500/mo, but rarely causes problems) or something Claude did in a managed or unmanaged session. ymmv

Re: Claude Code on the web

#143

Post by mvkel »

mmaunder wrote: post #41

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…

This is why Anthropic is a zombie company.

They put all of their eggs in the coding basket, with the rest of their mission couched as "effective altruism," or "safetyism," or "solving alignment," (all terms they are more loudly attempting to distance themselves from[0], because it's venture kryptonite).

Meanwhile, all OpenAI had to do was point their training cannon at it for a run, and suddenly Anthropic is irrelevant. OpenAI's focus as a consumer company (and growing as a tool company) is a safe, venture-backable bet.

Frontier AI doesn't feel like a zero-sum game, but for now, if you're betting on AI at all, you can really only bet on OpenAI, like Tesla being a proxy for the entire EV industry.

[0] https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/53Gc35vDLK2u5nBxP/...

Re: Claude Code on the web

#144

Post by jswny »

mmaunder wrote: post #41

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…

I find Codex CLI to be very good too, but it’s missing tons of features that I use in Claude Code daily that keep me from switching full time.

- Good bash command permission system

- Rollbacks coupled with conversation and code

- Easy switching between approval modes (Claude had a keybind that makes this easy)

- Ability to send messages while it’s working (Codex just queues them up for after it’s done, Claude injects them into the current task)

- Codex is very frustrating when I have to keep allowing it to run the same commands over and over, Claude this works well when I approve it to run a command for the session

- Agents (these are very useful for controlling context)

- A real plan mode (crucial)

- Skills (these are basically just lazy loaded context and are amazing)

- The sandboxing in codex is so confusing, commands fail all the time because they try to log to some system directory or use internet access which is blocked by default and hard to figure out

- Codex prefers python snippets to bash commands which is very hard to permission and audit

When Codex gets to feature parity, I’ll seriously look at switching, but until then it’s just a really good model wrapped in an okay harness

Re: Claude Code on the web

#145

Post by johnfn »

mmaunder wrote: post #83
mmaunder wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm seeing the downvotes. I'm sorry folks feel that way. I'm regretting my honesty. 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 th…

You’re getting downvoted because the amount of weight I place on your original comment is contingent on whether or not you’re actually using AI to do meaningful work ot not. Without clarifying what you’re doing, it’s impossible to distinguish you from one of those guys that says he’s using AI to do tons of work and then you peek under the hood and he’s made like 15 markdown files and his code is a mess that doesn’t do anything.

Well, that, and it’s just a bit annoying to claim that you’ve found some amazing new secret but that you refuse to share what the secret is. It doesn’t contribute to an interesting discussion whatsoever.

Re: Claude Code on the web

#146

Post by [deleted] »

jswny wrote: post #144
mmaunder wrote: post #41

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…

I find Codex CLI to be very good too, but it’s missing tons of features that I use in Claude Code daily that keep me from switching full time. - Good bash command permission system - Rollbacks coupled with conversation and code - Easy switching between approval modes (Claude had a keybind that makes this easy) - Ability to send messages while it’s working (Codex just queues them up for after it’s done, Claude injects…

[deleted]

Re: Claude Code on the web

#147

Post by hmokiguess »

didgeoridoo wrote: post #139
hmokiguess wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to be the only solution still if using bedrock or direct API access instead of Pro / Max plan, the Claude Code for Web doesn't seem to let you use it that way.

You can log in to your CC instance however you like, including via Pro/Max. Happy just wraps it and provides remote access with a much better UI than using a phone-based terminal app.

Yes, that's precisely what I meant! I was talking with regards to the parent article about Claude Code on the Web via Anthropic.

Re: Claude Code on the web

#148

Post by F7F7F7 »

mvkel wrote: post #143
mmaunder wrote: post #41

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…

This is why Anthropic is a zombie company. They put all of their eggs in the coding basket, with the rest of their mission couched as "effective altruism," or "safetyism," or "solving alignment," (all terms they are more loudly attempting to distance themselves from[0], because it's venture kryptonite). Meanwhile, all OpenAI had to do was point their training cannon at it for a run, and suddenly Anthropic is irreleva…

For non-vibe coding purposes I've found that my $200 Claude (Claude Code) account regularly outperformed my $200 ChatGPT (Codex) account. This was after 2 months of heavily testing both mostly in Terminal TUI/CLI form and most recently with the latest VSCode/Cursor incarnations.

Even with the additional Sora usage and other bells & whistles that ChatGPT @ $200 provides, Claude provides more value for my use cases.

Claude Code is just a lot more comfortable being in your workflow and being a companion or going full 'agent(s)' and running for 30 minutes on one ticket. It's also a lot happier playing with Agents from other APIs.

There's nothing wrong with Anthropic wanting to completely own that segment and not have aspirations of world domination like OpenAI. I don't see how that's a negative.

If anything, the more ChatGPT becomes a 'everything app' the less likely I am to hold on to my $20 account after cancelling the $200 account. I'm finding the more it knows about me the more creeped out and "I didn't ask for this" I become.

Re: Claude Code on the web

#149

Post by incoming1211 »

intellectronica wrote: post #99
cesarvarela wrote: post #69

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.

Codex works much better for long-running tasks that require a lot of planning and deep understanding. Claude, especially 4.5 Sonnet, is a lot nicer to interact with, so it may be a better choice in cases where you are co-working with the agent. Its output is nicer, it "improvises" really well even if you give it only vague prompts. That's valueable for interactive use. But for delegating complete tasks, Codex is far…

I disagree, Codex always gets stuck and wants to double check and clarify things, its like "dammit just execute the plan and don't tell me until its completely finished"

The output of codex is also not as great. Codex is great at the planning and investigation portion but sucks at execution and code quality.

Re: Claude Code on the web

#150

Post by skybrian »

mmaunder wrote: post #70
bcrosby95 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, after correcting it several times I've gotten Claude Code to tell me it didn't have the expertise to work in one of my problem domains. It was kinda surprising but also kinda refreshing that it knew when to give up. For better or worse I haven't noticed similar things with Codex.

I've chosen problems with non-negotiable outcomes. In other words, problem domains where you either are able to clearly accomplish the very hard thing, or not, and there's no grey area. I've purposely chosen these kinds of problems to prove what AI agents are capable of, so that there is no debate in my mind. And with Codex I've accomplished the previously impossible. Unambiguously. Codex did this. Claude gave up. It…

We need product reviewers who can demonstrate things like this in public. Without details, "it works for me on my projects" only goes so far.
Post reply on HN