(no title)
Bewelge | 1 month ago
- I downloaded the repository, jumped into codex, explained the symptoms and it found and fixed the bug in less than ten minutes.
Change the second step to: - I downloaded the repository, explained the symptoms, copied the relevant files into Claude Web and 10 minutes later it had provided me with the solution to the bug.
Now I definitely see the ergonomic improvement of Claude running directly in your directory, saving you copy/paste twice. But in my experience the hard parts are explaining the symptoms and deciding what goes into the context.
And let's face it, in both scenarios you fixed a bug in 10-15 minutes which might have taken you a whole hour/day/week before. It's safe to say that LLMs are an incredible technological advancement. But the discussion about tooling feels like vim vs emacs vs IDEs. Maybe you save a few minutes with one tool over the other, but that saving is often blown out of proportion. The speedup I gain from LLMs (on some tasks) is incredible. But it's certainly not due to the interface I use them in.
Also I do believe LLM/agent integrations in your IDE are the obvious future. But the current implementations still add enough friction that I don't use them as daily drivers.
CurleighBraces|1 month ago
Once I started working this way however, I found myself starting to adapt to it.
It's not unusual now to find myself with at least a couple of simultaneous coding sessions, which I couldn't see myself doing with the friction that using Claude Web/Codex web provides.
I also entirely agree that there's going to be a lot of innovation here.
IDEs imo will change to become increasingly focused on reading/reviewing code rather than writing, and in fact might look entirely different.
Bewelge|1 month ago
I envy you for that. I'm not there yet. I also notice that actually writing the code helps me think through problems and now I sometimes struggle because you have to formulate problems up front. Still have some brain rewiring to do :)
theshrike79|1 month ago
My daily process is like this:
Claude plans (Opus 4.5)
Claude implements (Opus at work, Sonnet at home - I only have the $20 plan personally :P )
After implementation the relevant files are staged
Then I start a codex tab, tell it to review the changes in the staged files
I read through the review, if it seems valid or has critical issues ->
Clear context on Claude, give it the review and ask it to evaluate if it's valid.
Contemplate on the diff of both responses (Codex is sometimes a bit pedantic or doesn't get the wider context of things) and tell Claude what to fix
If I'm at home and Claude's quota is full, I use ampcode's free tier to implement the fix.