6 ms·
Claude Code Router
- margarina72 1y agoFeels very similar to Aider[1] 1: https://aider.chat/ https://aider.chat/
- KronisLV 1y agoThere’s also RooCode which is pretty nice: https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=RooVeterinaryInc.roo-cline https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=RooVeter... (fork of Cline, that one’s also good) Ofc some might prefer the pure CLI experience, but mentioning that because it also supports a lot of providers.
- linsomniac 1y agoAnyone care to compare the current Aider with Claude Code? I tried Aider 6+ months ago and liked it but haven't tried it more recently because Claude Code is working so well for me. But I keep feeling like I should try Aider again.
- ripley12 1y agoAider is good at one-shotting Git commits, but requires a human in the loop for a lot of iteration. Claude Code is better at iterating on problems that take multiple tries to get right (which is most problems IMO). I was really impressed by Aider until I started using CC.
- esafak 1y agoI recently tried Aider and it seemed a bit behind. It's not getting as much development as the others either: https://github.com/Aider-AI/aider/pulse/monthly https://github.com/Aider-AI/aider/pulse/monthly Compare with https://github.com/sst/opencode/pulse/monthly https://github.com/sst/opencode/pulse/monthly
- andretti1977 1y agoI moved from Aider to ClaudeCode for the simple reason i usually use IntelliJ Idea and even if poorer than RooCode on VSCode, integration between IntelliJ and ClaudeCode is reasonably solid. That said today i started using CCR since the possibility to use different models is extremely interesting (and the reason why i initially used Aider)
- EnPissant 1y agoClaude Code with a plan is so much cheaper than any API.
- esafak 1y agoDo you feel this is true of both the Pro and Max plans?
- tobyjsullivan 1y agoIt depends on your usage patterns, presumably. In my case, I ended up accruing $100/day w/ Claude Code (on github workflows) so Max x20 was an easy decision. Pro seems targeted at a very different use case. Personally, I’ve never used the chat enough to break even. But someone who uses it several times per day might. ETA: I get that the benefits transfer between the two, just with different limits. I still think it’s pretty clear which kind of usage each plan is intended for.
- cadamsdotcom 1y agoAll these new tools are so exciting, but running untrusted code which auto-updates itself is blocking me from trying these tools. I wish for a vetting tool. Have an LLM examine the code then write a spec of what it reads and writes, & you can examine that before running it. If something in the list is suspect.. you’ll know before you’re hosed not after :)
- lionkor 1y agothat's cool and all, before you get malicious code that includes prompt injections and code that never runs but looks super legit. LLMs are NOT THOROUGH. Not even remotely. I don't understand how anyone can use LLMs and not see this instantly. I have yet to see an LLM get a better failure rate than around 50% in the real world with real world expectations. Especially with code review, LLMs catch some things, miss a lot of things, and get a lot of things completely and utterly wrong. It takes someone wholly incompetent at code review to look at an LLM review and go "perfect!". Edit: Feel free to write a comment if you disagree
- resonious 1y agoIf you know that LLMs are not thorough going into it, then you can get your failure rates way lower than 50%. Of course if you just paste a product spec into an LLM, it will do a bad job. If you build an intuition for what kinds of asks an LLM (agent, really) can do well, you can choose to only give it those tasks, and that's where the huge speedups come from. Don't know what to do about prompt injection, really. But "untrusted code" in the broader sense has always been a risk. If I download and use a library, the author already has free reign of my computer - they don't even need to think about messing with my LLM assistant.
- stpedgwdgfhgdd 1y agoMy suggestion is to try CC, use a language like Go, and read their blogs how they use it internally. They are transparent what works and what does not work.
- esafak 1y agoThey work better in small, well-commented code bases in popular languages. The further you stray from that the less successful they are. That's on top of the quality of your prompt, of course.
- firemelt 1y agobtw do you have javascript's stack background?
- crocowhile 1y agoThis is what got me started with claude-code. I gave it a try using openrouter API and got a bill of $40 for 2-3 hours of work. At that point, subscription to the Anthropic plan became a no-brainer
- esafak 1y agoWhich model did you use in Openrouter, Claude?
- crocowhile 1y agoI tried quite a few of them, including the cheap / free models but the only one that was really working was claude. The others were hanging whenever the model needed a confirmation for action. Mind you, this was some time ago.
- blitzar 1y agoWhat is the secret sauce of Claude Code that makes it, somewhat irrespective of the backend LLM, better than the competition? Is it just better prompting? Better tooling?
- ethan_smith 1y agoClaude's edge comes from its superior context handling (up to 200K tokens), better tool use capabilities, and constitutional AI training that reduces hallucinations in code generation.
- FergusArgyll 1y ago200 k is the lowest among any frontier llm
- NullifyNAN 1y agoYeah but most fall apart at lower context than advertised. They do great at simple stuff like needle in a haystack tests but totally flop when you actually try and use that context for something productive.
- CuriouslyC 1y agoThe agentic instructions just seem to be better. It does stuff by default (such as working up a plan of action) that other agents need to be prompted for, and it seems to get stuck less in failure sinks. The actual Claude model is decent, but claude code is probably the best agentic tool out there right now.
- eawgewag 1y agotbh, claude code is the only product that feels like its made by people who have actually used AI tooling on legacy codebases for pretty much every other tool i've used, you walk away from it with the overwhelming feeling that whoever made this has never actually worked at a company in a software engineering team before i realize this isn't an answer with satisfactory evidence-based language. but I do believe that there's a core `product-focus` difference between claude with other tools
- sylware 1y agoIt is a bit off-topic here, but anybody tried to use such LLMs for code porting: from c++ (and similar) to plain C99+?
- slhck 1y agoYeah, look at what https://x.com/badlogicgames https://x.com/badlogicgames has done porting an engine with the help of Claude Code. He's set up a TODO loop to perform this: https://github.com/badlogic/claude-commands https://github.com/badlogic/claude-commands – background blog article: https://mariozechner.at/posts/2025-06-02-prompts-are-code/ https://mariozechner.at/posts/2025-06-02-prompts-are-code/
- sylware 1y agoMariosechner post looks very promising. We may finally get to the devs doing lock-in using ultra complex syntax languages in a much more efficient way using LLMs. I have already some ideas for some target c++ code to port to C99+.
- badlogic 1y agoThe todo and porting "programs" are unrelated. The blog post shows the full porting pipeline.
- ACCount36 1y agoOne of the best use cases for LLMs. They excel at this kind of translation-adjacent task.
- nxobject 1y agoUnfortunately, I haven’t been able to use this with many of the recent open weight code/instruct models - CC tool use doesn’t work with Qwen3 and Kimi K2 for me.
- hansmayer 1y agoNo please folks. Personally I have always been excited about the AI as a scientific discipline and practical field, and still am. But lets please stop trying to make a dead-end application of an otherwise interesting technology work. Its like those people who were still trying to build electronics with vaccuum tubes after transistors were invented. We need a transistor moment in the AI, not more vaccuum tubes.
- itsthecourier 1y agowhat are you talking about? how is this a deadend? it improves over existing tools
- hansmayer 1y agoI am not disputing that it improves the tools. But looking at the entire picture, the whole concept of using LLMs as a general purpose utility is a dead-end. Just the basic arithmetics of it does not add up. If you told your manager you had spent 20,000 dollars on a project, generating a pre-tax revenue of 100 dollars, i.e. creating net loss of 19,900 USD, you'd be fired right away. But somehow the GenAI industry has a similar investment-to-revenue ratio on a much larger scale and still the wishful thinking is in it's fifth year? I get it that people want to get in on the ride but just that having to add so much on top of it, constantly new plugins, tools, concepts, whatever all so that we can avoid seeing this for what it is - building TVs with vaccuum tubes, when what we desparately need are transistors, not improved vaccuum tubes. Just as we did not need faster horses in the era of Ford T-Model.
- sc077y 1y agoI tried installing and setting up the project today, it was miserable. I finally got it to work only to find out that the mistral models' tool calling does not work at all for claude code. Also, there is no mention anywhere of what models actually support anthropic level tool calling. If anyone knows if there are some open weight models (deepseek or others) I can host on my infra to get this to work out of the box that would be amazing.