Really liked that "Go Full Screen" as a modal flow, surprisingly intuitive.
Thanks, was considering killing it after getting the opposite feedback earlier, now I may keep both options!
Which tools do Claude, Codex and Cursor choose? We measured 17k runs to find out
91–100 of 175 posts
Re: Which tools do Claude, Codex and Cursor choose? We measured 17k runs to find out
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Claude Code rarely searches the web while Codex almost always does I’m trying to understand why they are opposite. I think it is true, I find myself giving a secondary prompt to Claude to “research this” and only then will it fetch. Codex is bang on fetching already.
OpenAI is close to Microsoft so I assume that they have preferential and cheap access to the Bing search index. Claude is independent. Gemini should have Google search.
[dead]
Re: Which tools do Claude, Codex and Cursor choose? We measured 17k runs to find out
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
By not harassing projects with AI generated pull requests.
A pull request is a communication to the project. AI or no AI, a poorly communicated request is a burden. IMHO AI prs are fine as long as the submitter has done the work to refine that communication to make it easy to read and assess.
True, the problem is that AI ones are 500x longer and at a first glance look fine, so they waste much more time.
Moreover a human contributor can learn and do better in the next PR, while the AI won't, unless the prompt is changed, but the operator won't learn.
Re: Which tools do Claude, Codex and Cursor choose? We measured 17k runs to find out
#94Azure database??? In house bot protection??? In house search??? Some of these are absolutely wild. Surprised Strands didn't even get mentioned for agent frameworks.
Azure database was mostly for enterprise use-cases. Rebuilding a lot of things in-house is a real trend, especially for Claude Code when you don't ask it explicitly to consider all solutions and avoid overhead of managing things yourself. Codex and Cursor seem to have this in mind more naturally (at least using GPT-5.6 Sol / Grok 4.6)
Re: Which tools do Claude, Codex and Cursor choose? We measured 17k runs to find out
#95Can we not encourage the same strip-mining and ad and SEO bullshit that previously ruined the last decade+ of the Internet? A large portion of the utility of AI is the barren ad-driven growth-hacked hellscape search has become. Don't encourage the next generation of these businesses, I beg of everyone.
[dead]
Re: Which tools do Claude, Codex and Cursor choose? We measured 17k runs to find out
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Claude Code rarely searches the web while Codex almost always does I’m trying to understand why they are opposite. I think it is true, I find myself giving a secondary prompt to Claude to “research this” and only then will it fetch. Codex is bang on fetching already.
OpenAI is close to Microsoft so I assume that they have preferential and cheap access to the Bing search index. Claude is independent. Gemini should have Google search.
[dead]
Re: Which tools do Claude, Codex and Cursor choose? We measured 17k runs to find out
#97Redshift for databases ain’t even here. This is suspect.
Why? We haven't benchmarked Data Warehouses yet, only prod databases where you wouldn't expect Redshift to be considered.
Re: Which tools do Claude, Codex and Cursor choose? We measured 17k runs to find out
#98They didn't measure which programming language because we all know it's python, which it tries to use, every session, despite repeated memory files to not use python.
Recently it's even taken to installing python to get jobs done.
Re: Which tools do Claude, Codex and Cursor choose? We measured 17k runs to find out
#99They didn't measure which programming language because we all know it's python, which it tries to use, every session, despite repeated memory files to not use python. Recently it's even taken to installing python to get jobs done.
[dead]
Re: Which tools do Claude, Codex and Cursor choose? We measured 17k runs to find out
#100I remember when the SEO nightmare started, it looked like an innocent intelectual investigation exercise like this.
We don't need to reproduce the same errors! Anyway I do think it is going to be different this time because generating content is becoming so easy today that the entire web would just become 99.99% slop very quickly if things don't change. That being said the solution isn't that trivial, curious if you have thoughts on it?