←back to thread

Gemini CLI

(blog.google)
1336 points sync | 3 comments | 25 Jun 25 13:10 UTC | HN request time: 1.298s | source
Show context
ed_mercer ◴[25 Jun 25 13:28 UTC] No.44377098[source]▶
> That’s why we’re introducing Gemini CLI

Definitely not because of Claude Code eating our lunch!

replies(5): >>44377185 #>>44377328 #>>44377692 #>>44377762 #>>44384841 #
unshavedyak ◴[25 Jun 25 13:49 UTC] No.44377328[source]▶
Yea, i'm not even really interested in Gemini atm because last i tried 2.5 Pro it was really difficult to shape behavior. It would be too wordy, or offer too many comments, etc - i couldn't seem to change some base behaviors, get it to focus on just one thing.

Which is surprising because at first i was ready to re-up my Google life. I've been very anti-Google for ages, but at first 2.5 Pro looked so good that i felt it was a huge winner. It just wasn't enjoyable to use because i was often at war with it.

Sonnet/Opus via Claude Code are definitely less intelligent than my early tests of 2.5 Pro, but they're reasonable, listen, stay on task and etc.

I'm sure i'll retry eventually though. Though the subscription complexity with Gemini sounds annoying.

replies(2): >>44377997 #>>44378082 #
1. ur-whale ◴[25 Jun 25 14:49 UTC] No.44377997[source]▶
> It would be too wordy, or offer too many comments

Wholeheartedly agree.

Both when chatting in text mode or when asking it to produce code.

The verbosity of the code is the worse. Comments often longer than the actual code, every nook and cranny of an algorithm unrolled over 100's of lines, most of which unnecessary.

Feels like typical code a mediocre Java developer would produce in the early 2000's

replies(1): >>44378363 #
2. porridgeraisin ◴[25 Jun 25 15:22 UTC] No.44378363[source]▶
> Feels like typical code a mediocre Java developer would produce in the early 2000's

So, google's codebase

replies(1): >>44382068 #
3. handfuloflight ◴[25 Jun 25 21:41 UTC] No.44382068[source]▶
You were intimate with that?