Live data from Hacker News

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs. Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Coding Comparison

composio.dev

151–160 of 336 posts

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro vs. Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Coding Comparison

#151
post #5

From my use case, the Gemini 2.5 is terrible. I have a complex Cython code in a single file (1500 lines) for a Sequence Labeling. Claude and o3 are very good in improving this code and following the commands. The Gemini always try to do unrelated changes. For example, I asked, separately, for small changes such as remove this unused function, or cache the arrays indexes. Every time it completely refactored the code a…

set temperature to 0.4 or lower.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro vs. Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Coding Comparison

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the smoothest tom sawyer move I've ever seen IRL, I wonder how many people are now grinding out your GTK4 port with our favorite LLM/system to see if it can. It'll be interesting to see if anyone gets something working with current-gen LLMs. UPDATE: naive (just fed it your description verbatim) cline + claude 3.7 was a total wipeout. It looked like it was making progress, then freaked out, deleted 3/4 of its…

>> This is the smoothest tom sawyer move I've ever seen IRL That made me laugh. True, but not really the motivation. I honestly don't think LLMs can code significant real-world things yet and I'm not sure how else to prove that since they can code some interesting things. All the talk about putting programmers out of work has me calling BS but also thinking "show me". This task seems like a good combination of simple…

Yes, very much agree, an interesting benchmark. Particularly because it’s in a “tier 2” framework (gtkmm) in terms of amount of code available to train an LLM on. That tests the LLMs ability to plan and problem solve compared with, say, “convert to the latest version of react” where the LLM has access to tens of thousands (more?) of similar ports in its training dataset and more has to pattern match.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro vs. Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Coding Comparison

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made this NES emulator with Claude last week [0]. I'd say it was a pretty non-trivial task. It involved throwing a lot of NESDev docs, Disch mapper docs, and test rom output + assembly source code to the model to figure out. [0]: https://kaiokendev.github.io/nes/

How would you characterize the overall structural complexity of the project, and degree of novelty compared to other NES emulators Claude may have seen during training ? I'd be a bit suspect of an LLM getting an emulator right, when all it has to go on is docs and no ability to test (since pass criteria is "behaves same as something you don't have access to")... Did you check to see the degree to which it may have be…

> How would you characterize the overall structural complexity of the project, and degree of novelty compared to other NES emulators Claude may have seen during training ?

Highly complex, fairly novel.

Emulators themselves, for any chipset or system, have a very learnable structure: there are some modules, each having their own registers and ways of moving data between those registers, and perhaps ways to send interrupts between those modules. That's oversimplifying a bit, but if you've built an emulator once, you generally won't be blindsided when it comes to building another one. The bulk of the work lies in dissecting the hardware, which has already been done for the NES, and more open architectures typically have their entire pinouts and processes available online. All that to say - I don't think Claude would have difficulty implementing most emulators - it's good enough at programming and parsing assembly that as long as the underlying microprocessor architecture is known, it can implement it.

As far as other NES emulators goes, this project does many things in non-standard ways, for instance I use per-pixel rendering whereas many emulators use scanline rendering. I use an AudioWorklet with various mixing effects for audio, whereas other emulators use something much simpler or don't even bother fully implementing the APU. I can comfortably say there's no NES emulator out there written the way this one is written.

> I'd be a bit suspect of an LLM getting an emulator right, when all it has to go on is docs and no ability to test (since pass criteria is "behaves same as something you don't have access to")... Did you check to see the degree to which it may have been copying other NES emulators ?

Purely javascript-based NES emulators are few in number, and those that implement all aspects of the system even fewer, so I can comfortably say it doesn't copy any of the ones I've seen. I would be surprised if it did, since I came up with most of the abstractions myself and guided Claude heavily. While Claude can't get docs on it's own, I can. I put all the relevant documentation in the context window myself, along with the test rom output and source code. I'm still commanding the LLM myself, it's not like I told Claude to build an emulator and left it alone for 3 days.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro vs. Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Coding Comparison

#154
post #59

Here is a real coding problem that I might be willing to make a cash-prize contest for. We'd need to nail down some rules. I'd be shocked if any LLM can do this: https://github.com/solvespace/solvespace/issues/1414 Make a GTK 4 version of Solvespace. We have a single C++ file for each platform - Windows, Mac, and Linux-GTK3. There is also a QT version on an unmerged branch for reference. The GTK3 file is under 2KLOC.…

A chance for all those coding assistant companies like Devin to show their mettle!

They'll happily demo writing hello world in 50 languages, or maybe a personal profile page with moving! icons! Fancy stuff.

They won't touch this.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro vs. Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Coding Comparison

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you getting gemini 2.5 pro for free? In the gemini iOS app the only available models are currently 2.0 flash and 2.0 flash thinking.

They just added it to the free tier today.

Yup, you can go navigate to https://gemini.google.com > choose 2.5 Pro (experimental).

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro vs. Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Coding Comparison

#156
I remember back in the day when I did Visual Basic in the 90s there were a lot of cool "New Project from Template" things in Visual Studio, especially when you installed new frameworks and SDKs and stuff like that. With a click of a button you had something that kind of looked like a professional app! Or even now, the various create-whatever-app tooling in npm and node keeps on that legacy.

Anyway, AI "coding" makes me think of that but on steroids. It's fine, but the hype around it is silly, it's like declaring you can replace Microsoft Word because "New Project From Template" you got a little rich text widget in a window with a toolbar.

One of the things mentioned in the article is the writer was confused that Claude's airplane was sideways. But it makes perfect sense, Claude doesn't really care about or understand airplanes, and as soon as you try to refine these New Project From Template things the AI quickly stops being useful.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro vs. Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Coding Comparison

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you characterize the overall structural complexity of the project, and degree of novelty compared to other NES emulators Claude may have seen during training ? I'd be a bit suspect of an LLM getting an emulator right, when all it has to go on is docs and no ability to test (since pass criteria is "behaves same as something you don't have access to")... Did you check to see the degree to which it may have be…

> How would you characterize the overall structural complexity of the project, and degree of novelty compared to other NES emulators Claude may have seen during training ? Highly complex, fairly novel. Emulators themselves, for any chipset or system, have a very learnable structure: there are some modules, each having their own registers and ways of moving data between those registers, and perhaps ways to send interr…

Interesting - thanks!

Even with your own expert guidance, it does seem impressive that Claude was able complete a project like this without getting bogged down in the complexity.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro vs. Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Coding Comparison

#158
post #5

From my use case, the Gemini 2.5 is terrible. I have a complex Cython code in a single file (1500 lines) for a Sequence Labeling. Claude and o3 are very good in improving this code and following the commands. The Gemini always try to do unrelated changes. For example, I asked, separately, for small changes such as remove this unused function, or cache the arrays indexes. Every time it completely refactored the code a…

I mean it's really in how you use it.

The focus on benchmarks affords a tendency to generalize performance as if it's context and user independent.

Each model really is a different piece of software with different capabilities. Really fascinating to see how dramatically different people's assessments are

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro vs. Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Coding Comparison

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the point of a one-to-one GTK3 → GTK4 rewrite when the user experience doesn’t improve at all? Why not modularize the backend and build a better UI with tech that’s actually relevant in 2025?

> Why not modularize the backend and build a better UI with tech that’s actually relevant in 2025? Doing the second part is to my understanding actually the purpose of the stated task.

Why are you calling GTK4 irrelevant? Large swaths of Linux run on it and GTK3

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro vs. Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Coding Comparison

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the smoothest tom sawyer move I've ever seen IRL, I wonder how many people are now grinding out your GTK4 port with our favorite LLM/system to see if it can. It'll be interesting to see if anyone gets something working with current-gen LLMs. UPDATE: naive (just fed it your description verbatim) cline + claude 3.7 was a total wipeout. It looked like it was making progress, then freaked out, deleted 3/4 of its…

>> This is the smoothest tom sawyer move I've ever seen IRL That made me laugh. True, but not really the motivation. I honestly don't think LLMs can code significant real-world things yet and I'm not sure how else to prove that since they can code some interesting things. All the talk about putting programmers out of work has me calling BS but also thinking "show me". This task seems like a good combination of simple…

I agree. I tried something similar: a conversion of a simple PHP library from one system to another. It was only like 500 loc but Gemini 2.5 completely failed around line 300, and even then its output contained straight up hallucinations, half-brained additions, wrong namespaces for dependencies, badly indented code and other PSR style violations. Worse, it also changed working code and broke it.
Post reply on HN