←back to thread

469 points samuelstros | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
brokegrammer ◴[] No.45001678[source]
I don't get it. The title says "What makes Claude Code so damn good", which implies that they will show how Claude Code is better than other tools, or just better in general. But they go about repeating the Claude Code documentation using different wording.

Am I missing something here? Or is this just Anthropic shilling?

replies(5): >>45001719 #>>45001947 #>>45003495 #>>45003706 #>>45009343 #
nuwandavek ◴[] No.45001719[source]
(blogpost author here) Haha, that's totally fair. I've read a whole bunch of posts comparing CC to other tools, or with a dump of the the architecture. This post was mainly for people who've used CC extensively, know for a fact that it is better and wonder how to ship such an experience in their own apps.
replies(1): >>45001798 #
brokegrammer ◴[] No.45001798[source]
I've used Claude Code, Cursor, and Copilot is Vscode and I don't "know" that Claude Code is better apart from the fact that it runs in the terminal, which makes it a little faster but less ergonomic than tools running inside the editor. All of the context tricks can be done with Copilot instructions as well, so I simply can't see how Claude Code is superior.
replies(2): >>45001995 #>>45004241 #
techwiz137 ◴[] No.45001995[source]
For code generation, nothing so far beats Opus. More likely than not it generated working code and fixed bugs that Gemini 2.5 pro couldn't solve or even Gemini Code Assist. Gemini Code Assist is better than 2.5 pro, but has way more limits per prompt and often truncates output.
replies(5): >>45002136 #>>45002196 #>>45002217 #>>45002674 #>>45003344 #
1. faangguyindia ◴[] No.45002674[source]
for me gemini 2.5 pro with thinking tokens enabled blows Opus out of the water for "difficult problems".