51–60 of 257 posts
Two months ago, Claude was great for "here is a specific task I want you to do to this file". Today, they seem to be pivoting towards "I don't know how to code but want this feature" usage. Which might be a good product decision, but makes it worse as a substitute for writing the code myself.
I always get Claude Code to create a plan unless its trivial, it will describe all the changes its going to make and to which files, then let it rip in a new context.
Why use a new context? Or you mean, just accept the plan and it automatically clears the context.
Well, there is OpenCode [1] as an alternative, among many others. I have found OpenCode being the closest to Claude Code experience, and I find it quite good. Having said that I still prefer Claude Code for the moment. [1] https://opencode.ai/
OpenCode would be nicer if they used normal terminal scrolling and not their own thing :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of those wild experiments are running on a "real", existing codebase that is more than 6 months old. The thing they don't talk about is that nobody outside these AI companies wants to vibe code with a 10 year old codebase with 2000 enterprise customers. As you as you start to work with a codebase that you care about and need to seriously maintain, you'll see what a mess these agents make.
I maintain serious code bases and I use LLM agents (and agent teams) plenty -- I just happen to review the code they write, I demand they write the code in a reviewable way, and use them mostly for menial tasks that are otherwise unpleasant timesinks I have to do myself. There are many people like me, that just quietly use these tools to automate the boring chores of dealing with mature production code bases. We are…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of those wild experiments are running on a "real", existing codebase that is more than 6 months old. The thing they don't talk about is that nobody outside these AI companies wants to vibe code with a 10 year old codebase with 2000 enterprise customers. As you as you start to work with a codebase that you care about and need to seriously maintain, you'll see what a mess these agents make.
That is also my experience. Doesn't even have to be a 10 year old codebase. Even a 1 year old codebase. Any one that is a serious product that is deployed in production with customers who rely on it. Not to say that there's no value in AI written code in these codebases, because there is plenty. But this whole thing where 6 agents run overnight and "tada" in the morning with production ready code is...not real.
Similarly, a lot of the AGI-hype comments exist to expand the scope of the space. It's not real, but it helps to position products and win arguments based on hypotheticals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's about catching when it goes off the rails before it makes a mess The latest "meta" in AI programming appears to be agent teams (or swarms or clusters or whatever) that are designed to run for long periods of time autonomously. Through that lens, these changes make more sense. They're not designing UX for a human sitting there watching the agent work. They're designing for horizontally scaling agents that work…
None of those wild experiments are running on a "real", existing codebase that is more than 6 months old. The thing they don't talk about is that nobody outside these AI companies wants to vibe code with a 10 year old codebase with 2000 enterprise customers. As you as you start to work with a codebase that you care about and need to seriously maintain, you'll see what a mess these agents make.
We use agents very aggressively, combined with beads, tons of tests, etc.
You treat them like any developer, and review the code in PRs, provide feedback, have the agents act, and merge when it's good.
We have gained tremendous velocity and have been able to tackle far more out of the backlog that we'd been forced to keep in the icebox before.
This idea of setting the bar at "agents work without code reviews" is nuts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenCode would be nicer if they used normal terminal scrolling and not their own thing :(
Terminal scrolling opens a big can of worms for them, I doubt they'll ever implement it. The best you can do is enable scrollbars in opencode so you can quickly jump places.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looking at it from far is simply making something large from a smaller input, so its kind of like nondeterministic decompression. What fills the holes are best practices, what can ruin the result is wrong assumptions. I dont see how full autonomy can work either without checkpoints along the way.
Totally agreed. Those assumptions often compound as well. So the AI makes one wrong decision early in the process and it affects N downstream assumptions. When they finally finish their process they've built the wrong thing. This happens with one process running. Even on latest Opus models I have to babysit and correct and redirect claude code constantly. There's zero chance that 5 claude codes running for hours with…
Still makes this change from Anthropic stupid.
[flagged]