I use Claude Code with the Max plan, and the experience isn't far off from what you describe. You still need to understand the system and review the implementation, because it makes many mistakes.

That's not the part it saves me time in, it saves me time in looking up the documentation. Other than that, it might be slower, because the larger the code change is, the more time I need to spend reviewing, and past a point I just can't be bothered.

The best way I've found is to have it write small functions, and then I tell it to compose them together. That way, I know exactly what's happening in the code, and I can trust that it works correctly. Cursor is probably a better way to do that than Claude Code, though.

▲

t_mahmood 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

So, I am paying $20, for a glorified code generator, that may or may not be correct, to write a small function that I can do for free, and be confident about the correctness, if I have not been lazy to implement a test for it.

If you point out, with test it's also the same with any AI tool available, but to come to that result, I have to continuously prompt it till it gives me the desired output, while I may be able to do it in 2/3 iterations.

Reading documentation always made me little bit knowledgeable than before, while prompting the LLM, gives me nothing of knowledge.

And, I also have to decide which LLM would be good for the task at hand, and most of them will not be free (unless I use a local, but that will also use GPU, and add an energy cost)

I may be nitpicking, but I see too many holes with this approach

▲

stavros 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

The biggest hole you don't see is that it's worth the $20 to make me overcome my laziness, because I don't like writing code, but I like making stuff, and this way I can make stuff while fooling my brain into thinking I'm not writing code.

	▲	t_mahmood 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, that can be a point, which is helping you overcome your personal barrier, But that can be anything, That is not you were vouching for on the original comment. It was about saving time.

▲

weard_beard 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not only that, but the process described is how you train a junior dev.

There, at least, the wasted time results in the training of a human being who can become sophisticated enough to become a trusted independent implementer in a relatively short duration

▲

turtlebits 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Your time isn't free, and I'd certainly with more than $20/month.

I find it extremely useful as a smarter autocomplete, especially for the tedious work - changing function definitions, updating queries when DB schema changes, and writing http requests/api calls from vendor/library documentation.

	▲	t_mahmood 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Certainly, So I use an IDE, IntelliJ Ultimate to be precise. None of the use-cases you mention requires LLM. Just available as IDE functionalities. IntelliJ has LLM based auto complete, with which I am okay, But it still wrong too many times. Works extremely well with Rust. Their non-llm autocomplete is also superb, which uses ML for suggesting closest, relevant match, IIRC. It also makes refactoring a breeze, I know what it's going to do exactly. Also, it can handle database refactoring to a certain capacity! And for that it does not require LLM, so no nondeterministic behavior. Also, the IDE have its own way of doing http requests, and it's really nice! But, I can use their live template to do autocomplete any boilerplate code. It only requires setting once. No need to fiddle with prompts.

▲

mattacular 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The best way I've found is to have it write small functions, and then I tell it to compose them together.

Pretty much how I code without AI, except making my brain break the problem down into small functions and expressing them in code rather than as a chat.

▲

Rochus 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> it saves me time in looking up the documentation

I have a Perplexity subscription which I heavily use for such purpose, just asking how something works or should be used, with a response just on the point and with examples. Very useful indeed. Perplexity gives me access to Claude Sonnet 4 w/o Thinking which I consider great models, and it can also generate decent code. My intention was to find out how good the recent Claude Opus is in comparison and how much of my work I'm able to delegate. Personally I much prefer the user interface features, performance and availability of Perplexity to Claude.ai.

▲

gommm 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I end up using Perplexity a lot too, especially when I'm doing something unfamiliar. It's also a good way to quickly find out what are best practices for a given framework/language I'm not that familiar with (I usually ask it to link to examples in the wild and it find opensource projects illustrating those points)

▲

stavros 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I have both, and Perplexity is much more like a search engine than a chat companion (or at least that's how I use it). I like both, though.

▲

Rochus 5 days ago | parent [-]

You can select the model. I very much appreciate the Claude Sonnet models which are very good and rational discussion partners, responding to arguments in detail and critically, allowing for the dialectical exploration of complex topics. I have also experimented with other models including ChatGPT, Gemini or Grok, but the resulting discussions were only a fraction as useful (i.e. more optimized towards affirmative feel-good small talk, from my humble point of view).

	▲	stavros 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Hmm, I've never tried that, even though I prefer Claude in general too. I'll try that, thanks!