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

41–50 of 236 posts

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

#41

Post by asdff »

formerly_proven wrote: post #21
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…

This is a recurring fantasy in LLM threads but makes little sense. Writing machine code is very difficult (even writing byte code for simple VMs is annoying and error-prone). Abstractions are beneficial and increase productivity (per human, per token). It makes essentially no sense to throw away seven decades of productivity increasing technologies to have neural nets punch cards again, and it's not going to happen u…

Compute is always increasing on this planet. It makes no sense to stick with seven decade old paradigms from the time when we were simply transmuting mathematical proofs into computational functions. We should be exploring the void, we will have the compute for this. Randomness will take away the difficulty as we increase compute to parse over these random functions in reasonable time frames. The idea of limiting technological development to what our ape brain can conceive of on its own on human biological timescales is quite a shackle, honestly.

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

#42

Post by nzoschke »

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.

Counter argument...

High velocity teams also observe production system telemetry and use error rates, tracing and more to maintain high SLAs for customers.

They set a "budget" and use feature flagging to release risky code and roll back or roll forward based on metrics.

So agentic coding can feed back on observed behaviors in production too.

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

#43

Post by asdff »

themafia wrote: post #34
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."

Not saying training set or present LLM. Truly random binary generator left to its own device. Lets evaluate what spits out from that iterated several trillion times over with the massive compute capability we will have. I am not thinking of this happening in the next couple years, but in the next couple of centuries.

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

#44

Post by Dilettante_ »

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…

We would of course need to specify the behaviors to test for. The more precisely we specify these behaviors, the more complexly our end product would be able to behave. We might invent a formal language for writing down these behaviors, and some people might be better at thinking about what kind of tests would need to be written to coax a certain type of end result out of the machine.

But that's future music, forgive a young man for letting his imagination run wild! ;)

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

#45

Post by kldavis4 »

ch_123 wrote: post #6

> Use Claude Code if you > a) never plan on learning and just care about outputs, or > b) are an abstraction maximilist. As a Claude Code user for about 6 months, I don't identify with either of these categories. Personally I switched to Claude Code because I don't particularly enjoy VScode (or forks thereof). I got used to a two window workflow - Claude Code for AI-driven development, and Goland for making manual ed…

My only gripe with the Goland integration is if you have multiple terminals open with CC, it will randomly switch to the first terminal for no apparent reason. Then, if you aren't paying close attention, you prompt the wrong instance.

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

#46

Post by asdff »

hollowturtle wrote: post #15
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…

Why should we throw away decades of development in determistic algorithms? Why tech people mentions "geneticists"? I would never select an algorithm with a "good" flying trait for making an airplane works, that's nuts

But you have selected an algorithm with a "good" flying trait already for making airplanes. Just with another avenue to get to it versus pure random generation. The evolution of the bird has came up with another algorithm for example, where they use flapping wings instead of thrust from engines. Even among airplane development, a lot was learned by studying birds, which are the result of a random walk algorithm.

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

#47

Post by csto12 »

ch_123 wrote: post #6

> Use Claude Code if you > a) never plan on learning and just care about outputs, or > b) are an abstraction maximilist. As a Claude Code user for about 6 months, I don't identify with either of these categories. Personally I switched to Claude Code because I don't particularly enjoy VScode (or forks thereof). I got used to a two window workflow - Claude Code for AI-driven development, and Goland for making manual ed…

Do you find yourself making manual changes 50%, 40%, 30%… of the time?

Always curious to hear how individuals have their workflows, if you don’t mind sharing.

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

#49

Post by 9cb14c1ec0 »

Is it just me, or has Claude Code gotten really stupid the last several days. I've been using it almost since it was publicly released, and the last several days it feels like it reverted back 6 months. I was almost ready to start yolo-ing everything, and now it's doing weird hallucinations again and forgetting how to edit files. It used to go into plan mode automatically, now it won't unless I make it.

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

#50

Post by mitemte »

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…

I can see a lot of negatives in relation to removing the human readable aspect of software development. Thorough testing would be virtually impossible because we’d be relying on fuzzing to iron out potential edge cases or bugs.

In this situation, AI companies are incentivised to host the services their tooling generates. If we don't get source code, it is much easier for them to justify not sharing it. Plus, who is to say the machine code even works on consumer hardware anyway? It leads to a future where users specify inputs while companies generate programs and handle execution. Everything becomes a black box. No thank you.

Post reply on HN