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

31–40 of 236 posts

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

#31

Post by AIorNot »

madrox wrote: post #20
tuckwat wrote: post #3

> You no longer need to review the code. Or instruct the model at the level of files or functions. You can test behaviors instead. Maybe for a personal project but this doesn't work in a multi-dev environment with paying customers. In my experience, paying attention to architecture and the code itself results in a much more pliable application that can be evolved.

It's doesn't work...yet. I agree my stomach churns a little at this sentence. However, paying customers care about reliability and performance. Code review helps that today, but it's only a matter of time before it is more performative than useful in serving those goals at the cost of velocity.

the (multi) billon dollar question is when that will happen, I think, case in point:

the OP is a kid in his 20s describing the history of the last 3 years or so of small scale AI Development (https://www.linkedin.com/in/silen-naihin/details/experience/)

How does that compare to those of us with 15-50 years of software engineering experience working on giant codebases that have years of domain rules, customers and use cases etc.

When will AI be ready? Microsoft tried to push AI into big enterprise, Anthropic is doing a better job -but its all still in infancy

Personally for me I hope it won't be ready for another 10 years so I can retire before it takes over :)

I remember when folks on HN all called this AI stuff made up

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

#32

Post by stavros »

asdff wrote: post #28
stavros wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but you won't be able to test all behaviors and you won't have enough time to try a million alternatives. Just because of the number of possibilities, it'll be faster to just read the code.

Eventually the generation and evaluation will be quite fast where testing a million alternatives will be viable. Impressive you suggest that there might be a million alternatives but it would be faster to just read the code and settle on one. How might that be determined? Did the author who wrote the standard library really come up with the best way when writing those functions? Or did they come up with something tha…

If this were viable, we'd all be running Haiku ten times in the time it took to run Opus once, but nobody does.

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

#33

Post by natpat »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #26

The "Council of models" is a good first step, but ultimately I found myself settling on an automated talent acquisition pipeline. I have a BIRTHING_POOL.md that combines the best AGENTS.md and introduces random AI-generated mutations and deletions. The candidates are tested using take-home PRs which are reviewed by HR.md and TECH_MANAGER.md. TECH_MANAGER.md measures completion rate per tokens (effectiveness) and then…

Is this satire? I can't tell any more.

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

#34

Post by themafia »

asdff wrote: post #10

>> You no longer need to review the code. Or instruct the model at the level of files or functions. You can test behaviors instead. I think this is where things will ultimately head. You generate random code, purely random in raw machine readable binary, and simply evaluate a behavior. Most random generated code will not work. some, however, will work. and within that working code, some will be far faster and this is…

> You generate random code,

Code derived from a training set is not at all "random."

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

#35

Post by asdev »

asdff wrote: post #10

>> You no longer need to review the code. Or instruct the model at the level of files or functions. You can test behaviors instead. I think this is where things will ultimately head. You generate random code, purely random in raw machine readable binary, and simply evaluate a behavior. Most random generated code will not work. some, however, will work. and within that working code, some will be far faster and this is…

all fun and games until you need to debug the rats nest that you've been continually building. I am actually shocked people who have coded before have been one-shotted into believing this

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

#36

Post by lenerdenator »

hollowturtle wrote: post #29
phist_mcgee wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great rule of business: sell a solution that causes more problems, requiring the purchase of more solutions.

Customers are tired of getting piles of shit, look at the Windows situation

Or don't sell the solution. When you have monopolies, regulatory capture, and endless mountains of money, you can more or less do what you'd like.

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

#37

Post by lunar_mycroft »

asdff wrote: post #10

>> You no longer need to review the code. Or instruct the model at the level of files or functions. You can test behaviors instead. I think this is where things will ultimately head. You generate random code, purely random in raw machine readable binary, and simply evaluate a behavior. Most random generated code will not work. some, however, will work. and within that working code, some will be far faster and this is…

For this to work, you'd have to fully specify the behavior of your program in the tests. Put another way, at that point your tests are the program. So the question is, which is a more convenient way to specify the behavior of a program: a traditional programming language, or tests written in that language. I think the answer should be fairly obvious.

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

#38

Post by bossyTeacher »

asdff wrote: post #10

>> You no longer need to review the code. Or instruct the model at the level of files or functions. You can test behaviors instead. I think this is where things will ultimately head. You generate random code, purely random in raw machine readable binary, and simply evaluate a behavior. Most random generated code will not work. some, however, will work. and within that working code, some will be far faster and this is…

> ou generate random code, purely random in raw machine readable binary, and simply evaluate a behavior. Most random generated code will not work. some, however, will work. and within that working code, some will be far faster and this is the code that is used.

Humans are expensive but this approach seems incredibly inefficient and expensive. Even a junior can make steady progress against implementing a function, with your approach, just monkey coding like that could take you ages to write a single function. Estimates in software are already bad, they will get worse with your approach

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

#40

Post by p1esk »

hollowturtle wrote: post #23

>> You no longer need to review the code. You also no longer need to work, earn money, have a life, read, study, know anything about the world. This is pure fantasy my brain farts hard when I read sentences like that

You also no longer need to work, earn money, have a life, read, study, know anything about the world. This is pure fantasy

This will be reality in 10-20 years

Post reply on HN