cpursley 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

These types of responses are always so low value, they should be auto filtered out. How is Claude Code different than Codex, how is x different from y, etc. Read the repo and figure it our for yourself, good grief.

	▲	hakunin 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Because of the way humans learn, and everyone’s reference point being different (e.g. I know this, I don’t know that), this is very valuable if the author can provide a good explanation. That’s why there are books/docs like “rust for rubyists” and similar. I love finding these explanations later. Not everything needs to be researched yourself if you can get a clear/concise answer from the person trying to share/excite/get feedback on their project.
	▲	LexSiga 3 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		also - not everything needs to be unique. I think that is a leftover of some VC mind washing "you need a moat!". Many things can be great, and do somewhat similar things.
	▲	fleetfox 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		At that point this who submission should be auto filtered out since there are dozen of these and they are barely distinguishable except for couple of opinioned choices.

▲

yoanwaidev 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

agent-deck was the first one I actually tried to adopt, landed a couple of commits in it. wanted it to be the one.

what I kept missing was answering an agent without attaching to it. so space on a blocked one, type, enter, and it lands in that pane. on a project row it spawns a new agent already working on what you typed. the other half is review, ctrl+r opens what it changed as whole files with the diff tinted, c comments a line, C sends the notes into the pane.

deck does plenty I don't, worktrees, cost, forking. different bets.