171–180 of 732 posts
Serous question - why do people stick with Clause Code over Cursor? With Cursors base subscription I have access to pretty much all the Frontier models and can pick and choose. Anthropic models haven’t been my go-to in months, Gemini and Codex produce much better results for me.
All my information about this is being based on feels, because debugging isn't really feasible. Verbose mode is a mess, and there's no alternative. It still does what I need so I'm okay with it, but I'm also on the $20 plan so it's not that big of a worry for me. I did sense that the big wave of companies is hitting Anthropic's wallet. If you hadn't realized, a LOT of companies switched to Claude. No idea why, and th…
Use the pi coding agent. Bare-bones context, easy to hack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anecdotally, all the non-technical people I know are adapting fine to the console. You don’t need to know how bash commands work to use it as you are just approving commands, not writing them.
Approving commands you don't understand doesn't seem ideal
Vibe-coders griping about Claude's vibe-coded CLI hits all the right vibes.
I hate to say it, but "vibe-coders" are just "coders" now. It's a huge shift, but we need to start thinking of AI-tools as developer tools, just like a formatter, linter, or IDE would be. The right move is diversity. Just like diversity of editors/IDEs. We need good open source claude code alternatives.
As a SE with over 15 years' professional experience, I find myself pointing out dumb mistakes to even the best frontier models in my coding agents, to refine the ouput. A "coder" who is not doing this on the regular is only a tool of their tool.
(in my mental model, a "vibe coder" does not do this, or at least does not do it regularly)
Serous question - why do people stick with Clause Code over Cursor? With Cursors base subscription I have access to pretty much all the Frontier models and can pick and choose. Anthropic models haven’t been my go-to in months, Gemini and Codex produce much better results for me.
That said, Cursor Composer is a lot faster and really nice for some tasks that don't require lots of context.
I've been on the other side of this as a PM, and it's tough because you can't always say what you want to, which is roughly: This product is used by a lot of users with a range of use cases. I understand this change has made it worse for you, and I'm genuinely sorry about that, but I'm making decisions with much more information than you have and many more stakeholders than just you. > What majority? The change just…
The alternatives are alienating users or dumbing down the software, both of which are worse for any serious professional product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone and I mean everyone keeps parroting this "inflection point" marketing hype, which is so damn tiring.
The use of inflection point in the entire software industry is so annoying and cringy. It's never used correctly, it's not even used correctly in the Claude post everyone is referencing.
> That’s it. “Read 3 files.” Which files? Doesn’t matter. “Searched for 1 pattern.” What pattern? Who cares. Product manager here. Cynically, this is classic product management: simplify and remove useful information under the guise of 'improving the user experience' or perhaps minimalism if you're more overt about your influences. It's something that as an industry we should be over by now. It requires deep understa…
Not at all cynically, this is classic product management - simplify by removing information that is useful to some users but not others.
We shouldn't be over it by now. It's good to think carefully about how you're using space in your UI and what you're presenting to the user.
You're saying it's bad because they removed useful information, but then why isn't Anthropic's suggestion of using verbose mode a good solution? Presumably the answer is because in addition to containing useful information, it also clutters the UI with a bunch of information the user doesn't want.
Same thing's true here - there are people who want to see the level of detail that the author wants and others for whom it's not useful and just takes up space.
> It requires deep understanding of customer usage in order not to make this mistake.
It requires deep understanding of customer usage to know whether it's a mistake at all, though. Anthropic has a lot deeper understanding of the usage of Claude Code than you or I or the author. I can't say for sure that they're using that information well, but since you're a PM I have to imagine that there's been some time when you made a decision that some subset of users didn't like but was right for the product, because you had a better understanding of the full scope of usage by your entire userbase than they did. Why not at least entertain the idea that the same thing is true here?