←back to thread

Claude Code now supports hooks

(docs.anthropic.com)
381 points ramoz | 4 comments | 01 Jul 25 00:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.827s | source
Show context
cheriot ◴[01 Jul 25 03:30 UTC] No.44430301[source]▶
Amazing how there's whole companies dedicated to this and yet claude code keeps leading the way.
replies(2): >>44430386 #>>44431387 #
1. stavros ◴[01 Jul 25 07:12 UTC] No.44431387[source]▶
Does it? Claude Code is the product that works the least well for me, mainly because of its tendency to go off and do tons of stuff. I've found LLMs are at their best when they produce few enough lines of code that I can review and iterate, not when they go off and invent the world.

For that reason, I mainly use Aider and Cursor (the latter mostly in the "give me five lines" comment mode).

replies(2): >>44436397 #>>44449573 #
2. danielbln ◴[01 Jul 25 17:51 UTC] No.44436397[source]▶
I tell Claude Code to make a detailed implementation plan, then come back to me for discussion, then we step through the plan bit by bit together. It's all about guidelines. Don't want it to charge ahead? Tell it not to.
replies(1): >>44449599 #
3. theshrike79 ◴[02 Jul 25 22:38 UTC] No.44449573[source]▶
Have you tried Gemini CLI yet? :D It's even worse than Claude 3.5 was.

I asked it to check a few unit tests and it charged ahead by inventing features and started writing them - apologising profusely as it did so =)

4. stavros ◴[02 Jul 25 22:41 UTC] No.44449599[source]▶
I had a very specific problem I wanted to solve, Opus kept being entirely sure that it knew what the problem was, and that it could fix it. Next iteration, when the previous solution didn't work, Claude was sure it was some other thing. So on and so forth, until I was $35 poorer and had a bunch of code that didn't really seem to do anything, and certainly not fix my problem.

Planning and discussion wouldn't have fixed that.