←back to thread

The Claude Code Framework Wars

(shmck.substack.com)
125 points ShMcK | 6 comments | 07 Sep 25 04:05 UTC | HN request time: 0.611s | source | bottom
Show context
CompoundEyes ◴[07 Sep 25 10:09 UTC] No.45156903[source]▶
For anyone that’s applied one of these at what level of autonomy are you using it? And in what setting? Greenfield?

I see one mention brownfield development. Has anyone with experience using these frameworks fired up Claude Code on enterprise software and had confident results? I have unchecked access to Claude Code at work and based on personal agentic coding I’m sure they do aid it. I have decent but not consistent results with my own “system” in our code base. At least until the front end UI components are involved even with Playwright. But I’m curious — how much litter is left behind? How is your coworker tolerance? How large are your pull requests? What is your inference cost? How do these manage parallel?

The README documentation for many have a mix of fevered infomercial, system specific jargon, emoji splatter and someone’s dad’s very specific toolbox organization approach only he understands. Some feel like they’re setting the stage to sell something…trademarked!? Won’t Anthropic and others just incorporate the best of the bunch into their CLI tools in time?

Outside of work I’ve regularly used a reasoning model to produce a ten page spec, wired my project with strictest lint, type check, formatter, hooks, instruct it to check off as it goes and do red green TDD. I can tell gpt-5 in Cursor to “go”, occasionally nudge to stay on task and “ok next” then I’ll end up with what I wanted in time plus gold plating. The last one was a CLI tool for my agent to invoke and track their own work. Anyone with the same tools can just roll their own.

replies(1): >>45157426 #
dsiegel2275 ◴[07 Sep 25 12:01 UTC] No.45157426[source]▶
I'm only three weeks into using Claude Code but I'm now seeing impressive results using a structured, "role" or "persona" based approach in a large (500K+ SLOC) Elixir / Phoenix codebase. I'm using the $200 Max plan - so my inference costs are fixed.

For certain, the results are better when I use it to build new features into our platform - as opposed to making complicated refactors or other deep changes to existing parts of the system. But even in the latter case, if we have good technical documentation capturing the design and how parts of the system work (which we don't in many places), Claude Code can make good progress.

At first I was seeing a fair amount of what I would consider "bad code" - implementation and code that either didn't follow accepted coding style and patterns or that simply wasn't structured for reusability, maintainability. But after strengthening the CLAUDE.md file and adding an "elixir-code-reviewer" subagent which the "developer" persona had to use - the quality of code improved significantly.

Our platform is open source, you can see our current Claude commands and subagents here: https://github.com/Simon-Initiative/oli-torus/tree/master/.c...

replies(2): >>45157628 #>>45157687 #
fny ◴[07 Sep 25 12:44 UTC] No.45157687[source]▶
I didn't realize just how bad LLMs are with unpopular languages until now:

"Elixir lists do not support index based access via the access syntax"

"Never use else if or elseif in Elixir, always use cond or case for multiple conditionals."

replies(1): >>45158076 #
1. LiamPowell ◴[07 Sep 25 13:42 UTC] No.45158076[source]▶
Interestingly I've found that Claude is very good at writing valid Ada, it just writes complete garbage that doesn't follow the specification at all. As an example I asked it to change the handling of command line arguments in a program so that duplicates would cause an error rather than being ignored. If I recall correctly it took 6 course corrections to get to what I asked for, but each time it wrote valid code that just didn't complete the task. One I remember was arbitrarily limiting the length of an argument to 4096 characters and then only accepting arguments that were exactly 4096 characters.

Here is the relevant change, it didn't have any sort of hidden complexity: https://github.com/Prunt3D/prunt/commit/b4d7f5e35be6017846b8...

replies(1): >>45158467 #
2. fny ◴[07 Sep 25 14:32 UTC] No.45158467[source]▶
I'm pretty convinced the only developers who think we're on the cusp of AGI code exclusively in Python or JavaScript.
replies(3): >>45158656 #>>45165177 #>>45166210 #
3. Leynos ◴[07 Sep 25 14:49 UTC] No.45158656[source]▶
GPT-5 is a dab hand at Rust
replies(1): >>45162615 #
4. evolve2k ◴[07 Sep 25 22:05 UTC] No.45162615{3}[source]▶
I was hearing that it was good with writing Ruby on Rails as the rails community is so structured already in where things go and sorta the Rails way of writing the code. Anyone have experience with this?
5. 3uler ◴[08 Sep 25 06:24 UTC] No.45165177[source]▶
The problem is that there is a lot of bad python and typescript/javascript out there, and I similarly find my self having to define my coding style in context files in order to get decent results in newer code bases without a lot of examples to follow. And even then you need to say do it like @example.py all the time.

Maybe the future is fine-tuned models on specific coding styles?

6. touristtam ◴[08 Sep 25 09:22 UTC] No.45166210[source]▶
I think those are cult followers which _leaders_ have no understanding of programming language in the first place. The Python/JS bias might be because of the training dataset ingested.