| ▲ | imron 7 hours ago | |
Codex works great in opencode until it gets up to around 200k context. Then it starts doing things like: me: Can you implement the next thing OpenCode+Codex: Yep I'll do that next. <does nothing and returns to prompt> me: Well? OpenCode+Codex: <starts implementing> me: Looks good, let's fix this one issue. OpenCode+Codex: Sure let's do that. <does nothing and returns to prompt> me: <bangs head against wall> -- I've found the codex cli to be much better in this regard, it doesn't nearly derp out so much at higher token counts. Opus is still my favourite model (I've found 4.6 specifically gives me the best results in OpenCode), but with all the shenanigans Anthropic is pulling, Codex is a close enough substitute. | ||
| ▲ | cmrdporcupine 6 hours ago | parent [-] | |
I went back and forth between the two for months, often having both in various proportions. But I had enough reliability issues with Anthropic back in March timeframe that I just threw in the towel. I find GPT "boring" to work with but it's a steady hand and there's really nothing I throw at it that it can't do. And yeah, I am supplementing with GLM 5.2 and have actually found it quite complimentary. One of Codex's weaknesses is "excessive staging" -- basically it's quite cautious and pushes a very incremental approach. This is good for working in an established codebase (which most work is anyways). But for yeeting new projects, Claude always shone better for me (though it often left a mess of race conditions and unhandled negative cases that I had to clean up by hand or with codex) GLM actually does pretty well in this regard, with the right prompting. It's more "creative" than GPT. | ||