[willaaam]

This blog post lacks almost any form of substance.

It could've been shortened to: Codex is more hands off, I personally prefer that over claude's more hands-on approach. Neither are bad. I won't bring you proof or examples, this is just my opinion based on my experience.

[mergesort]

Heya, author here! Admittedly this was a quick blog post I fired off, much shorter than my usual writing.

My goal wasn't to create a complete comparison of both tools — but to provide a little theory a behavior I'm seeing. You're (absolutely) right that it's a theory not a study, and I made sure to state that in the post. :)

Mostly though the conclusion describes pretty succinctly why I wrote the post, as a way to get more people to try more of the tools so they can adequately form their own conclusions.

> I think back to coworkers I’ve had over the years, and their varying preferences. Some people couldn’t start coding until they had a checklist of everything they needed to do to solve a problem. Others would dive right in and prototype to learn about the space they would be operating in.

> The tools we use to build are moving fast and hard to keep up with, but we’ve been blessed with a plethora of choices. The good news is that there is no wrong choice when it comes to AI. That’s why I don’t dismiss people who live in Claude Code, even though I personally prefer Codex.

> The tool you choose should match how you work, not the other way around. If you use Claude, I’d suggest trying Codex for a week to see if maybe you’re a Codex person and didn’t know it. And if you use Codex, I’d recommend trying Claude Code for a week to see if maybe you’re more of a Claude person than you thought.

> Maybe you’ll discover your current approach isn’t the best fit for you. Maybe you won’t. But I’m confident you’ll find that every AI tool has its strengths and weaknesses, and the only way to discover what they are is by using them.

[willaaam]

Hey! Didn't mean my comment negatively towards you in any way, though I now realize it might've come across as such. Blogs with opinions based on experiences alone are absolutely fine, thanks for sharing.

What I did mean is to indicate that your blog felt like a HN comment to me, where I generally expect a HN link to be news or facts that subsequently spark a discussion.

At the end of your post I guess I was hoping or expecting facts or examples, indicating it was engaging enough to read to the end.

Happy holidays!

[judahmeek]

ADHD devs should definitely try Conductor or Crystal or some other git worktree manager.

[adastra22]

It’s funny because my use of Claude Code is the opposite. I use slash commands with instructions to find context, and basically never interact with it while it is doing its thing.

[kukkeliskuu]

How do you get it to stop to ask you something sometimes when it is doing its thing?

[deepdarkforest]

> Codex is more hands off, I personally prefer that over claude's more hands-on approach

Agree, and it's a nice reflection of the individual companie's goals. OpenAI is about AGI, and they have insane pressure from investors to show that that is still the goal, hence codex when works they could say look it worked for 5 hours! Discarding that 90% of the time it's just pure trash.

While Anthropic/Boris is more about value now, more grounded/realistic, providing more consistent hence trustable/intuitive experience that you can steer. (Even if Dario says the opposite). The ceiling/best case scenario of a claude code session is a bit lower than Codex maybe, but less variance.

[dworks]

Well, if you had tried using GPT/Codex for development you would know that the output from those 5 hours would not be 90% trash, it would be close to 100% pure magic. I'm not kidding. It's incredible as long as you use a proper analyze-plan-implement-test-document process.