4 ms·

I am coming back to this. I’ve been using Claude pretty hard at work and for personal projects, but the longer I do it, the more disappointed I become with the

I am coming back to this. I’ve been using Claude pretty hard at work and for personal projects, but the longer I do it, the more disappointed I become with the quality of output for anything bigger than a script. I do love planning things out and clarifying my thoughts. It’s a turbocharged rubber duck - but it’s not a great engineer

bcrosby95 1y ago
My thoughts on scripts are: the output is pretty bad too, but it doesn't matter as much in a script, because its just a short script, and all that really matters is that it kinda works.
utyop22 1y ago
What you're describing is a glorified mirror. Doesn't that sound ridiculous to you?
- jprokay13 1y ago
  I am still working on tweaking how I work and design with Claude to hopefully unlock a level of output that I’m happy with. Admittedly, part of it is my own desire for code that looks a certain way, not just that which solves the problem.
- interstice 1y ago
  That's what rubber ducking is
  - utyop22 1y ago
    It sounds better when you get more specific about what it is. Many people have fallen prey to this and gone a tad loopy.
searene 1y ago
Me too. I’ve been playing with various coding agents such as Cursor, Claude Code, and GitHub Copilot for some time, and I would say that their most useful feature is educating me. For example, they can teach me a library I haven’t used before, or help me debug a production issue. Then I would choose to write the code by myself after I’ve figured everything out with their help. Writing code by myself is definitely faster in most cases.
- bootsmann 1y ago
  > For example, they can teach me a library I haven’t used before. How do you verify it is teaching you the correct thing if you don't have any baseline to compare it to?
  - searene 1y ago
    You are right, I don't have any baseline. I just try it and see if it works. One good thing about the software field is that I can compile and run the code for verification. It may not be optimal, but at least it's testable.

bcrosby95 1y ago

My thoughts on scripts are: the output is pretty bad too, but it doesn't matter as much in a script, because its just a short script, and all that really matters is that it kinda works.

utyop22 1y ago

What you're describing is a glorified mirror. Doesn't that sound ridiculous to you?

jprokay13 1y ago
I am still working on tweaking how I work and design with Claude to hopefully unlock a level of output that I’m happy with. Admittedly, part of it is my own desire for code that looks a certain way, not just that which solves the problem.
interstice 1y ago
That's what rubber ducking is
- utyop22 1y ago
  It sounds better when you get more specific about what it is. Many people have fallen prey to this and gone a tad loopy.

searene 1y ago

Me too. I’ve been playing with various coding agents such as Cursor, Claude Code, and GitHub Copilot for some time, and I would say that their most useful feature is educating me. For example, they can teach me a library I haven’t used before, or help me debug a production issue. Then I would choose to write the code by myself after I’ve figured everything out with their help. Writing code by myself is definitely faster in most cases.

bootsmann 1y ago
> For example, they can teach me a library I haven’t used before. How do you verify it is teaching you the correct thing if you don't have any baseline to compare it to?
- searene 1y ago
  You are right, I don't have any baseline. I just try it and see if it works. One good thing about the software field is that I can compile and run the code for verification. It may not be optimal, but at least it's testable.