←back to thread

467 points mraniki | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.398s | source
Show context
mraniki ◴[] No.43534033[source]
TL;DR

If you want to jump straight to the conclusion, I’d say go for Gemini 2.5 Pro, it’s better at coding, has one million in context window as compared to Claude’s 200k, and you can get it for free (a big plus). However, Claude’s 3.7 Sonnet is not that far behind. Though at this point there’s no point using it over Gemini 2.5 Pro.

replies(5): >>43534339 #>>43534356 #>>43534369 #>>43534373 #>>43534529 #
1. dsincl12 ◴[] No.43534356[source]
Not sure what happened with Claude 3.7, but 3.5 is way better in all things day to day. 3.7 felt like a major step back especially when it comes to coding even though this was highlighted as one aspect they improved upon. 500k window will soon be released for Claude. Not sure much it will improve anything though.
replies(1): >>43535354 #
2. quesomaster9000 ◴[] No.43535354[source]
With Claude 3.7 I keep having to remind it about things, and go back and correct it several times in a row, before cleaning the code up significantly.

For example, yesterday I wanted to make a 'simple' time format, tracking Earths orbits of the Sun, the Moons orbits of Earth and rotations of Earth from a specific given point in time (the most recent 2020 great conjunction) - without directly using any hard-coded constants other than the orbital mechanics and my atomic clock source. Where this would be in the format of `S4.7.... L52... R1293...` for sols, luns & rotations.

I keep having to remind to to go back to first principles, we want actual rotations, real day lengths etc. rather than hard-coded constants that approximate the mean over the year.