| ▲ | SkyPuncher a day ago |
| 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 9 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. |
|
|
