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

I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

blog.silennai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 236 posts

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#141

Post by Mashimo »

SilenN wrote: post #133
Mashimo wrote: post #125

Anyone tried claude code with z.ai subscription? It's only for a fraction of the price, but 3 times as much limits. I currently use github subscription for hobby projects.

Nothing competes with Opus 4.5 in Claude Code. Codex & Gemini are arguable.

Yeah, but I tought at 29 USD for a year with 3 times the limit it might be able to compete.

But I will probably check out claudecode next month when my github copilot subscription runs out.

Edit: I found this: https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1q6f62t/tried_n... Seems like it might be worth to check it out. Found a 10% discount that works on the additional discount so now it would be 26 USD / year.

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#142

Post by magospietato »

I'm copacetic to the notion we're not at enterprise codebase level (yet), but everyone who still thinks agentic coding stops at React CRUD apps needs to update their priors.

I needed a poc RAG pipeline to demo concepts to other teams. Built and tested this over the weekend, exclusively with Claude Code and a little OpenCode. Mix of mobile app and breaking out Android terminal to allow Sonnet 4.5 to run the dotnet build chain on tricky compilation issues.

https://github.com/pixelbadger/Pixelbadger.Toolkit.Rag

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#143

Post by hatefulheart »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #135
Alupis wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found that "back and forth" is part of the learning aspect LLM's provide. Even when the LLM provides code snippets, I type them out myself, which I've found forces me to think and understand them - often finding flaws and poor assumptions along the way. Letting an LLM drive in an agentic flow removes you from the equation. Maybe that's what some want - but I've personally found I end up with something that doesn…

It's correct, you didn't write it. Do you also avoid using frameworks and libraries for desire of feeling like you wrote the program you produced? You must have another reason to not want to use this code.

False equivalency. The maintenance and expertise required to run the codebase you’ve generated still falls flatly on you. When you use a library or a framework it normally is domain experts that do that stuff.

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#144

Post by dns_snek »

quixoticaxolotl wrote: post #107
dns_snek wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how exactly do you foresee probabilistic systems working out in real life? Nobody wants software that seldom does what they expect, and which tends to trend toward desirable behavior over time (where "desirable" behavior is determined by the sum of global feedback and revenue/profit of the company producing it). Today you send some money to your spouse but it's received by another person with the same name. Tomor…

You're thinking of probabilistic systems at run time . People are talking about probabilistic systems at compile time . Whatever gets generated, if it passes tests and is observably in compliance with the spec, is accepted and made permanent. It's the clay we're talking about Jackson Pollocking, not the sculpture.

I'm not, I'm thinking of poorly engineered systems that display buggy, unintended behaviors at runtime.

> observably in compliance with the spec

That's so easy to say and so incredibly hard to implement! Most unintended behaviors will never end up being prohibited/defined in the specification written by non-programmers.

The act of translating requirements from human language into well-defined semantics is what programming is.

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#145

Post by Alupis »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #135
Alupis wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found that "back and forth" is part of the learning aspect LLM's provide. Even when the LLM provides code snippets, I type them out myself, which I've found forces me to think and understand them - often finding flaws and poor assumptions along the way. Letting an LLM drive in an agentic flow removes you from the equation. Maybe that's what some want - but I've personally found I end up with something that doesn…

It's correct, you didn't write it. Do you also avoid using frameworks and libraries for desire of feeling like you wrote the program you produced? You must have another reason to not want to use this code.

When you use frameworks or libraries, you are trusting (hoping) the author(s) spent the time to get it right. At a minimum, the framework/library is documented in literal documentation and/or code that's static and can be read and understood by you. Ask an LLM to do a task 3 times, you'll get 3 different outputs - they're non-deterministic.

I catch a lot of nonsensical and inefficient code when I have that "back and forth" described above - particularly when it comes to architectural decisions. An agent producing hundreds or thousands of lines of code, and making architectural decisions all in one-go will mean catching those problems will be vastly more challenging or impossible.

I've also found reviewing LLM generated code to be much more difficult and grueling than reviewing my own or another human's code. It's just a mental/brain drain. I've wasted so many hours wondering if I'm just dumb and missing something or not-understanding some code - only to later realize the LLM was on the fritz. Having little or no previous context to understand the code creates a "standing at the foot of Mt. Everest" feeling constantly, over and over.

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#146

Post by raverbashing »

wyldfire wrote: post #123
sailorganymede wrote: post #110

Meanwhile here’s me still just using the ChatGPT web chat asking it for code snippets.

I found that when I used ChatGPT's web chat, I frequently went back and forth, shuttling its output to an editor or IDE and then coming back to ChatGPT with "oh, now it fails like this: ...". It made me feel like I was the automaton now. Claude Code was transformative and it made me realize that something very incredibly significant had occurred. Letting the LLM "drive" like this was inevitable. Now I see just exactl…

Yeah but honestly VSCode with Github copilot plugin works in a similar way. Might not be as good but it works

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#147

Post by wqaatwt »

magospietato wrote: post #142

I'm copacetic to the notion we're not at enterprise codebase level (yet), but everyone who still thinks agentic coding stops at React CRUD apps needs to update their priors. I needed a poc RAG pipeline to demo concepts to other teams. Built and tested this over the weekend, exclusively with Claude Code and a little OpenCode. Mix of mobile app and breaking out Android terminal to allow Sonnet 4.5 to run the dotnet bui…

> a poc RAG pipeline

Why would that be any harder than a React app? At least for me having an LMM produce a decent and consistent UI layout is not that straightforward

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#148

Post by sunrunner »

hatefulheart wrote: post #143
wahnfrieden wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's correct, you didn't write it. Do you also avoid using frameworks and libraries for desire of feeling like you wrote the program you produced? You must have another reason to not want to use this code.

False equivalency. The maintenance and expertise required to run the codebase you’ve generated still falls flatly on you. When you use a library or a framework it normally is domain experts that do that stuff.

I’m so glad we’ve got domain experts to write those tricky things like left-pad for us.

On a more serious note, I do think that the maintenance aspect is a differentiator, and that if it’s something that you end up committing to your codebase then ownership and accountability falls to you. Externally sourced libraries and frameworks ultimately have different owners.

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#149

Post by jrflowers »

Ronsenshi wrote: post #131
jrflowers wrote: post #39

> This is a guide that combines: > 1. my experience from 5 years of coding with AI It is a testament to the power of this technology that the author has managed to fit five years of coding with AI in between 2023 and now

> AI in between 2023 and now And produce nothing of substance besides more incestuous content about AI and AI-development.

Brb perfecting time dilation to become better buds with this cloud based productivity tool suite

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#150

Post by suddenlybananas »

asdff wrote: post #79
lunar_mycroft wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Behavior does not need to be fully specified at the outset. It could be evaluated after the run. This doesn't work when the software in question is written by competent humans, let alone the sort of random process you describe. A run of the software only tells you the behavior of the software for a given input, it doesn't tell you all possible behaviors of the software. "I ran the code and the output looked good" i…

Genetic algorithms created our species, which are far more complex than anything we have written in computer science. I think they have stood up to the tests of creating a viable product for a given behavior. And with future compute, you will be able to evaluate behavior across an entire range of inputs for countless putative functions. There will be a time when none of this is compute bound. It is today, but in thre…

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/student-contributors-did-y...

Evolution ain't all that great.

Post reply on HN