3 ms·
That is interesting. I use Opus 5 as my daily driver, and it pretty much just works. For example, a few weeks ago I asked it to analyse my code and find duplic
by deterministic 27d ago
That is interesting. I use Opus 5 as my daily driver, and it pretty much just works.
For example, a few weeks ago I asked it to analyse my code and find duplicated code that could be extracted into reusable libraries. It found several good examples and did the refactoring. I reviewed the result, and it was 100% how I would have coded it myself.
I do almost no manual coding these days. Opus 5 just works for me.
So it is strange for me to read comments like yours saying that it doesn't work. It would be interesting to find out what makes the difference?
- croon 27d agoMe too, because I hear a lot of experiences like yours as well. It might be opinionated architecture not fitting the training norm, size of legacy repos/projects, language, or whatever else. For what it's worth I/we do much less manual coding now too, but it almost always takes a handful of re-prompts to reach expectations. We can do hooks to reduce superfluous comments or do a second specs-adherence pass, or write failing tests first, but other discrepancies aren't uniform enough to enforce in prompts or context. I'd love to know the difference too. Or whether long term velocity would be higher by vibing through PRs and deal with issues when things explode or refactor down 2M lines of LLM creep after the fact.