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

The creator of Claude Code's Claude setup

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 423 posts

Re: The creator of Claude Code's Claude setup

#401

Post by roncesvalles »

blitzar wrote: post #276
roncesvalles wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook, Reddit, and LinkedIn are all being heavily astroturfed by Anthropic people to oversell the usefulness of Claude Code. It's actually wild.

I am surprised by how many people don't know that Claude Code is an excellent product. Nevertheless, PR / influencer astroturfing makes me not want to use a product, which is why I use Claude in the first place and not any OpenAi products.

It is an excellent product but the narrative being pushed is that there's something unique about Claude Code, as if ChatGPT or Gemini don't have exactly the same thing.

Re: The creator of Claude Code's Claude setup

#402

Post by angoragoats »

crystal_revenge wrote: post #169
tmerr wrote: post #65

This is interesting to hear, but I don't understand how this workflow actually works. I don't need 10 parallel agents making 50-100 PRs a week, I need 1 agent that successfully solves the most important problem. I don't understand how you can generate requirements quicky enough to have 10 parallel agents chewing away at meaningful work. I don't understand how you can have any meaningful supervising role over 10 thing…

My initial response to reading this post was "wow, I think I'd rather just write the code". I also remain a bit skeptical because, if all of this really worked (and I mean over a long time and scaling to meet a range of business requirements), even if it's not how I personally want to write code, shouldn't we be seeing a ton of 1 person startups? I see Bay area startups pushing 996 and requiring living in the Bay are…

> I see Bay area startups pushing 996 and requiring living in the Bay area because of the importance of working in an office to reduce communication hurdles.

This is toxic behavior by these companies, and is not backed by any empirical data that I’ve ever seen. It should be shunned and called out.

As far as the remainder of your post, I think you’ve uncovered solid evidence that the abilities of LLMs to code on their own, without human planning, architecting, and constant correction, is significantly oversold by most of the companies pushing the tech.

Re: The creator of Claude Code's Claude setup

#403

Post by janderland »

johnfn wrote: post #38
nmfisher wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(2) isn't my experience at all. It's not 100% bug free but it definitely seems more stable (and faster) than I when I first used it last year.

The UI flickers rapidly in some cases when I use it in the VSCode terminal. When I first saw this when using Claude Code I imagined it was some vibe code bug that would be worked out quickly. But it's been like 9 months and still every day it has this behavior - to the point that it crashes VSCode! I can only imagine that no one at Anthropic uses VSCode because it really seems insane it's gone this long unfixed.

Perhaps it’s a bug in the VS code terminal? I don’t see anything like this in Kitty.

Re: The creator of Claude Code's Claude setup

#404

Post by sumedh »

saagarjha wrote: post #143
coldtea wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have a thread on that. https://x.com/trq212/status/2001439019713073626 I don't have that problem using it on iTerm2 however. I also don't use Tmux with it.

I see it in iTerm.

Try using Warp

Re: The creator of Claude Code's Claude setup

#405

Post by dangus »

CharlieDigital wrote: post #394
dangus wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of businesses fail within 5 years. Are they using AI because it’s better or because they have no other choice? If I hire two sandwich artists for 6 months but nobody buys my sandwiches, I don’t have much choice but to fire them. This word “pivot” is strong.

> Are they using AI because it’s better Because it's better (versus the engineers they were able to hire). > If I hire two sandwich artists for 6 months but nobody buys my sandwiches Pivot is strong and in both cases where they went n -> 1, the pivots were dramatic. One went from building a (credit) card switching SDK to building a legal assistant AI. One went from building a fin-tech compliance product to a CRM for…

This now seems like even less useful information than before.

They literally changed to doing an entirely different business.

This would be like saying I hired two sandwich artists, but sandwiches don’t sell well, so I fired my sandwich artists and now I run a coffee shop on my own.

Re: The creator of Claude Code's Claude setup

#406

Post by nbates80 »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #353
tmerr wrote: post #65

This is interesting to hear, but I don't understand how this workflow actually works. I don't need 10 parallel agents making 50-100 PRs a week, I need 1 agent that successfully solves the most important problem. I don't understand how you can generate requirements quicky enough to have 10 parallel agents chewing away at meaningful work. I don't understand how you can have any meaningful supervising role over 10 thing…

I suppose he may have a list of feature requests and bug reports to work on, but it does seem a bit odd from a human perspective to want to work on 5 or more things literally in parallel, unless they are all so simple that there is no cognitive load and context switching required to mentally juggle them. Washing dishes in parallel with laundry and cleaning is of course easily possible, but precisely because there is…

Same though here. I use Claude opus via api billing for tasks not that hard to implement but for which CC takes much less time than I would. However:

* a small PR costs 5-16 usd (I’ve been monitoring this for the past two days). Management is already pushing for us to use Cursor or a new tool called Augment Cod. * I can submit 4 to 5 PRs in a day * the bottleneck becomes:

- writing clear instructions and making the right choices - running tests - my mental capacity for context switching - code reviewing, correcting - Deployment - Even further live testing

I don’t understand how I could have 10 parallel workers without the output being degraded due to my inability to manage them. But I can see myself wasting a lot of $$ trying. And something tells me the thread is just normalizing throwing money at them

Re: The creator of Claude Code's Claude setup

#407

Post by bitfilped »

tmerr wrote: post #65

This is interesting to hear, but I don't understand how this workflow actually works. I don't need 10 parallel agents making 50-100 PRs a week, I need 1 agent that successfully solves the most important problem. I don't understand how you can generate requirements quicky enough to have 10 parallel agents chewing away at meaningful work. I don't understand how you can have any meaningful supervising role over 10 thing…

The only way to achieve that level of parallelism is by not knowing what you are doing or the peoblem space you are working in to begin with and just throwing multiple ill defined queries at agents until something "works". It's sort of a modern infinite monkey theorem if you will.

Re: The creator of Claude Code's Claude setup

#408

Post by sneak »

latexr wrote: post #227
sneak wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people either a) don’t know about the good tools or b) aren’t using them enough/properly. There is a ton of anti-AI sentiment, and not all LLMs are equal. There is a lot of individual adoption that is yet to occur. I know at least two startups that are one person or two people that are punching way above their weight due to this force multiplier. I don’t think it’s industry-wide yet, but it will be relativel…

> I don’t think it’s industry-wide yet, but it will be relatively soon. > Check back in on your assessment in a year. We’ve all read that, and claims grander than that, multiple times over the past few years. And next year someone will say it again.

No, before the tools weren’t good enough.

Now they are. Not everyone is using them yet, but they will. There’s zero doubt about it anymore. Lots of people are still not up to date on what is currently possible.

Re: The creator of Claude Code's Claude setup

#409

Post by blub »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #329
iLoveOncall wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work for a FAANG and I'm the top reviewer in my team (in terms of number of PRs reviewed). I work on an internal greenfield project, so something really fast moving. For ALL of 2025 I reviewed around 400 PRs. And that already took me an extreme amount of time. Nobody is reviewing this many PRs. I've also raised around 350 PRs in the same year, which is also #1 for my team. AI or not, nobody is raising upwards of 3,…

Reviewing PRs should be for junior engineers, architectural changes, brand new code, or broken tests. You should not review every PR; if you do, you're only doing it out of habit, not because it's necessary. PRs come originally from the idea that there's an outsider trying to merge code into somebody's open source project, and the Benevolent Dictator wants to make sure it's done right. If you work on a corporate SWEn…

(Not the OP)

For many years, all the projects I’ve been in had mandatory code review, some in the form of PRs (a github fabrication), most as review requests in other tooling.

This applies to everything from platform code, configuration, tooling to production software.

Inside a component, we use review to share knowledge about how something was implemented and reach consensus on the implementation details. Depending on developer skill level, this catches style, design issues or even bugs. For skilled developers, it’s usually comments on code-to-architecture mismatches, understandability, etc. Sometimes not entirely objective things, that nevertheless contribute to developing and maintaining a team consensus and style. Discussions also happen outside and before review, but we’ve found reviews invaluable.

If a team has yearly turnover or different skill levels (typical for most teams), not reviewing every commit is sloppy. Which has an additional meaning now with AI slop :)

Re: The creator of Claude Code's Claude setup

#410

Post by CharlieDigital »

dangus wrote: post #405
CharlieDigital wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are they using AI because it’s better Because it's better (versus the engineers they were able to hire). > If I hire two sandwich artists for 6 months but nobody buys my sandwiches Pivot is strong and in both cases where they went n -> 1, the pivots were dramatic. One went from building a (credit) card switching SDK to building a legal assistant AI. One went from building a fin-tech compliance product to a CRM for…

This now seems like even less useful information than before. They literally changed to doing an entirely different business. This would be like saying I hired two sandwich artists, but sandwiches don’t sell well, so I fired my sandwich artists and now I run a coffee shop on my own.

You can choose to bury your head in the sand with word games. Or acknowledge that LLM is enabling single person startups. Up to you.

I'm sharing information, not presenting an argument. You seem to want to argue that... something, but it is not apparent to me what it is.

Whatever you choose to do with this information, it did not change reality.

Post reply on HN