61–70 of 255 posts
After reading this opinion ten times today. Can someone explain to me why OpenCode is a “better harness”? Or is it just because it’s open source that people support it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. And in a way this has always been the story. It's why there's just so few companies making $$ in the pure devtooling space. I have no idea what JetBrain's financials are like, but I doubt they're raking in huge $$ despite having very good tools & unfortunately their attempts to keep abreast of the AI wave have been middling. Basically, I need Claude Code with a proper review phase built in. I need it to slow-the…
Try plan mode if you haven't already. Stay in plan mode until it is to your satisfaction. With Opus 4.5, when you approve the plan it'll implement the exact spec without getting off track 95% of the time.
It's irresponsible to your teammates to dump very large giant finished pieces of work on them for review. I try to impress that on my coworkers, and I don't appreciate getting code reviews like that for submission, and feel bad if I did the same.
Even worse if the code review contains blocks of code which the author doesn't even fully understand themselves because it came as one big block from and LLM.
I'll give you an example -- I have a longer term bigger task at work for a new service. I had discussions and initial designs I fed into Claude. "We" came to a concensus and ... it just built it. In one go mainly. It looks fine. That was Friday.
But now I have to go through that and say -- let's now turn this into something reviewable for my teammates. Which means basically learning everything this thing did, and trying to parcel it up into individual commits.
Which is something that the tool should have done for me, and involved me in.
Yes, you can prompt it to do that kind of thing. Plan is part of that, yes. But planning, implement, review in small chunks should be the default way of working, not something I have to force externally on it.
What I'd say is this: these tools right now are are programmer tools, but they're not engineer tools
Yeah I think Anthropic has the "right" to do this. That's fine. But they also have shown a weakness by failing to understand why people might want to do this (use their Max membership with OpenCode etc instead). People aren't using opencode or crush with their Claude Code memberships because they're trying to exploit or overuse tokens or something. That isn't possible. They do it because Claude Code the tool itself i…
But to me the appeal of OpenCode is that I can mix and match APIs and local models. I have DeepSeek R1 doing research while KLM is planning and doing code reviews and o4 mini breaking down screenshots into specs while local QWEN is doing the work.
My experience with bugs has also been the exact opposite of what you described.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How exactly are they going to lock me in?
By only supporting their own cloud service for remote execution & slowly adding more and more proprietary integration points that are incompatible with other tools.
To be clear, I’ve seen this sentiment across various comments not just yours, but I just don’t agree with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not "mad", I'm "sad" -- because I was very much on "Team Anthropic" a few months ago ... but the tool has failed to keep up in terms of quality. If they're going to close the sub off to other tools, they need to make very strong improvements to the tool. And I don't really see that. It's "fine" but I actually think these tools are letting developers down . They take over too much. They fail to give good insights…
There is so much low-hanging fruit in the tooling side right now. There's no way Anthropic alone can stay ahead of it all -- we need lots of different teams trying different things. I myself have been building a special-purpose vibe-coding environment and it's just astounding how easy it is to get great results by trying totally random ideas that are just trivial to implement. Lots of companies are hoping to win here…
After reading this opinion ten times today. Can someone explain to me why OpenCode is a “better harness”? Or is it just because it’s open source that people support it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The context is here that Anthropic tried to suppress alternatives. Boycott works here because there are alternatives, like writer addressed.
If "never" means never, you are not leverage, you are just gone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By only supporting their own cloud service for remote execution & slowly adding more and more proprietary integration points that are incompatible with other tools.
But switching cost to a different CLI coding tool is close to zero… I truly don’t understand the argument that using Claude Code means betting your business on that particular tool. I use Claude Code daily, but if tomorrow they massively raised prices, made the tool worse, or whatever I’d just switch to a competitor and keep working like nothing happened. To be clear, I’ve seen this sentiment across various comments…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m starting to think you’re right but only because software engineers don’t seem to actually value or care about open source anymore. Apparently we have collectively forgotten how bad it can be to let your tools own you instead of the other way around. Maybe another symptom of Silicon Valley hustle culture — nobody cares about the long term consequences if you can make a quick buck.
There's nothing stopping you from using OpenCode with any other provider, including Anthropic: you just can't get the subsidised pricing while doing so. This is irritating, yes - it certainly disincentivises me from trying out OpenCode - but it's also, like, not unexpected? In any case, the long-term solution for true openness is to be able to run open-weight models locally or through third-party inference providers.