| ▲ | sali0 a day ago |
| I've found myself having brand loyalty to Claude. I don't really trust any of the other models with coding, the only one I even let close to my work is Claude. And this is after trying most of them. Looking forward to trying 4. |
|
| ▲ | SkyPuncher a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Gemini is _very_ good at architecture level thinking and implementation. I tend to find that I use Gemini for the first pass, then switch to Claude for the actual line-by-line details. Claude is also far superior at writing specs than Gemini. |
| |
| ▲ | leetharris a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Much like others, this is my stack (or o1-pro instead of Gemini 2.5 Pro). This is a big reason why I use aider for large projects. It allows me to effortlessly combine architecture models and code writing models. I know in Cursor and others I can just switch models between chats, but it doesn't feel intentional the way aider does. You chat in architecture mode, then execute in code mode. | | |
| ▲ | adriand a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I also use Aider (lately, always with 3.7-sonnet) and really enjoy it, but over the past couple of weeks, the /architect feature has been pretty weird. It previously would give me points (e.g. 1. First do this, 2. Then this) and, well, an architecture. Now it seems to start spitting out code like crazy, and sometimes it even makes commits. Or it thinks it has made commits, but hasn't. Have you experienced anything like this? What am I doing wrong? | |
| ▲ | piperswe a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Cline also allows you to have separate model configuration for "Plan" mode and "Act" mode. | |
| ▲ | Keyframe a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | could you describe a bit how does this work? I haven't had much luck with AI so far, but I'm willing to try. | | |
| |
| ▲ | justinbaker84 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I have been very brand loyal to claude also but the new gemini model is amazing and I have been using it exclusively for all of my coding for the last week. I am excited to try out this new model. I actually want to stay brand loyal to antropic because I like the people and the values they express. | |
| ▲ | causal a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is exactly my approach. Use Gemini to come up with analysis and a plan, Claude to implement. | |
| ▲ | cheema33 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This matches with my experience as well. | |
| ▲ | vFunct a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yah Claude tends to output 1200+ line architectural specification documents while Gemini tends to output ~600 line. (I just had to write 100+ architectural spec documents for 100+ different apps) Not sure why Claude is more thorough and complete than the other models, but it's my go-to model for large projects. The OpenAI model outputs are always the smallest - 500 lines or so. Not very good at larger projects, but perfectly fine for small fixes. | | |
| ▲ | chermi a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I'd interested to hear more about your workflow. I use Gemini for discussing the codebase, making ADR entries based on discussion, ticket generation, documenting the code like module descriptions and use cases+examples, and coming up with detailed plans for implementation that cursor with sonnet can implement. Do you have any particular formats, guidelines or prompts? I don't love my workflow. I try to keep everything in notion but it's becoming a pain. I'm pretty new to documentation and proper planning, but I feel like it's more important now to get the best use out of the llms. Any tips appreciated! | | |
| ▲ | vFunct a day ago | parent [-] | | For a large project, the real human trick for you to do is to figure out how to partition it down to separate apps, so that individual LLMs can work on them separately, as if they were their own employees in separate departments. You then ask LLMs to first write features for the individual apps (in Markdown), giving it some early competitive guidelines. You then tell LLMs to read that features document, and then write an architectural specification document. Tell it to maybe add example data structures, algorithms, or user interface layouts. All in Markdown. You then feed these two documents to individual LLMs to write the rest of the code, usually starting with the data models first, then the algorithms, then the user interface. Again, the trick is to partition your project to individual apps. Also an app isn't the full app. It might just be a data schema, a single GUI window, a marketing plan, etc. The other hard part is to integrate the apps back together at the top level if they interact with each other... | | |
| ▲ | chermi 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Awesome, thanks! It's interesting how the most effective LLM use for coding kind of enforces good design principles. It feels like good architects/designers are going to be more important than ever. Edit- Except maybe TDD? Which kind of makes me wonder if TDD was a good paradigm to begin with. I'm not sure, but I'm picturing an LLM writing pretty shitty/hacky code if its goal is just passing tests. But I've never really tried TDD either before or after LLM so I should probably shut up. |
|
| |
| ▲ | rogerrogerr a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I just had to write 100+ architectural spec documents for 100+ different apps … whaaaaat? | | | |
| ▲ | Bjartr a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What's your prompt look like for creating spec documents? | |
| ▲ | jonny_eh a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Who's reading these docs? | | |
| ▲ | tasuki a day ago | parent [-] | | Another LLM, which distills it back into a couple of sentences for human consumption. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | MattSayar a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Same. And I JUST tried their GitHub Action agentic thing yesterday (wrote about it here[0]), and it honestly didn't perform very well. I should try it again with Claude 4 and see if there are any differences. Should be an easy test [0] https://mattsayar.com/personalized-software-really-is-coming... |
| |
| ▲ | WillPostForFood a day ago | parent | next [-] | | It would be pretty funny if your "not today. Maybe tomorrow" proposition actually did happen the next day. | | | |
| ▲ | fivestones 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Did you try it? Were the results any better? |
|
|
| ▲ | kilroy123 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The new Gemini models are very good too. |
| |
| ▲ | pvg a day ago | parent [-] | | As the poet wrote: I prefer MapQuest that's a good one, too Google Maps is the best true that double true! |
|
|
| ▲ | qingcharles a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm slutty. I tend to use all four at once: Claude, Grok, Gemini and OpenAI. They keep leap-frogging each other. My preference has been the output from Gemini these last few weeks. Going to check out Claude now. |
|
| ▲ | cleak a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Something I’ve found true of Claude, but not other models, is that when the benchmarks are better, the real world performance is better. This makes me trust them a lot more and keeps me coming back. |
|
| ▲ | Recursing a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I also recommend trying out Gemini, I'm really impressed by the latest 2.5. Let's see if Claude 4 makes me switch back. |
| |
| ▲ | dwaltrip a day ago | parent [-] | | What's the best way to use gemini? I'm currently pretty happy / impressed with claude code via the CLI, its the best AI coding tool I've tried so far | | |
| ▲ | stavros a day ago | parent [-] | | I use it via Aider, with Gemini being the architect and Claude the editor. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | alex1138 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think "Kagi Code" or whatever it's called is using Claude |
|
| ▲ | javier2 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I wouldn't go as far, but I actually have some loyalty to Claude as well. Don't even know why, as I think the differences are marginal. |
| |
| ▲ | bckr 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | It’s possible to get to know the quirks of these models and intuit what will and won’t work, and how to overcome those limitations. It’s also possible to just get to know, like, and trust their voice. I’m certain that brand awareness is also a factor for me in preferring Claude over ChatGPT etc |
|
|
| ▲ | sergiotapia a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro replaced Claude 3.7 for me after using nothing but claude for a very long time. It's really fast, and really accurate. I can't wait to try Claude 4, it's always been the most "human" model in my opinion. |
| |
| ▲ | ashirviskas a day ago | parent [-] | | Idk I found Gemini 2.5 Breaking code style too often and introducing unneeded complexity on the top of leaving unfinished functions. |
|
|
| ▲ | nico a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think it really depends on how you use it. Are you using an agent with it, or the chat directly? I've been pretty disappointed with Cursor and all the supported models. Sometimes it can be pretty good and convenient, because it's right there in the editor, but it can also get stuck on very dumb stuff and re-trying the same strategies over and over again I've had really good experiences with o4-high-mini directly on the chat. It's annoying going back and forth copying/pasting code between editor and the browser, but it also keeps me more in control about the actions and the context Would really like to know more about your experience |
|
| ▲ | rasulkireev a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| i was the same, but then slowly converted to Gemini. Still not sure how that happened tbh |
|
| ▲ | anal_reactor a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I've been initially fascinated by Claude, but then I found myself drawn to Deepseek. My use case is different though, I want someone to talk to. |
| |
| ▲ | miroljub a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I also use DeepSeek R1 as a daily driver. Combined with Qwen3 when I need better tool usage. Now that both Google and Claude are out, I expect to see DeepSeek R2 released very soon. It would be funny to watch an actual open source model getting close to the commercial competition. | | | |
| ▲ | jabroni_salad a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | A nice thing about Deepseek is that it is so cheap to run. It's nice being able to explore conversational trees without getting a $12 bill at the end of it. |
|
|
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |
