The technology is progressing very fast, and that includes both the models and the tooling around it.
For example, Gemini 2.5 was considered a great model for coding when it launched. Now it is far inferior to Codex and Claude code.
The Githib Copilot tooling is (currently) mediocre. It's ok as a better autocomplete but can't really compete with Codex or Claude or even Jules (Gemini) when using it as an agent.
The models are one part of the story. But the software around it matters at least as much: what tools does the model have access to, like bash or just file reading or (as in your example!) just a cache of files visited by the IDE (!). How does the software decide what extra context to provide to the model, how does it record past learnings from conversations and failed test runs (if at all!) and how are those fed in. And of course, what are the system prompts.
None of this is about the model; its all "plain old" software, and is the stuff around the model. Increasingly, that's where the quality differences lie.
I am sorry to say but Copilot is just sort of shoddy in this regard. I like Claude, some people like Codex, there are a bunch of options.
But my main point is - its probably not about the model, but about the products built on the models, which can vary wildly in quality.
In my experience with both Copilot and Claude, Claude makes subtler mistakes that are harder to spot, which also gobbles up time. Yes, giving it CLI access pretty cool and helps with scaffolding things. But unless you know exactly what you want to write, and exactly how it should work, to the degree that you will notice the footguns it can add deep in your structures, I wouldn't recommend anyone use it to build something professional.
nl|4 months ago
The technology is progressing very fast, and that includes both the models and the tooling around it.
For example, Gemini 2.5 was considered a great model for coding when it launched. Now it is far inferior to Codex and Claude code.
The Githib Copilot tooling is (currently) mediocre. It's ok as a better autocomplete but can't really compete with Codex or Claude or even Jules (Gemini) when using it as an agent.
weavejester|4 months ago
spenczar5|4 months ago
The models are one part of the story. But the software around it matters at least as much: what tools does the model have access to, like bash or just file reading or (as in your example!) just a cache of files visited by the IDE (!). How does the software decide what extra context to provide to the model, how does it record past learnings from conversations and failed test runs (if at all!) and how are those fed in. And of course, what are the system prompts.
None of this is about the model; its all "plain old" software, and is the stuff around the model. Increasingly, that's where the quality differences lie.
I am sorry to say but Copilot is just sort of shoddy in this regard. I like Claude, some people like Codex, there are a bunch of options.
But my main point is - its probably not about the model, but about the products built on the models, which can vary wildly in quality.
noduerme|4 months ago