upvote

points

by leobuskin6 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby infecto6 hours ago|
next
[-]
Inversely I don’t understand the praise for CC. These days it feels like bloatware. It absolutely can get the work done but when I measure on token and time use it ends up being a multiple of pi like harnesses.

CC works but for me it felt like increasingly they have zero incentive to make it a great experience. You hear folks like Boris talk about spinning up thousands of agents over night and agents chatting back and forth in GitHub issues and while I think it’s great from figuring out what the future looks like I don’t think it represents the reality of ROI today. So the folks building the tool are so disconnected I am simply not sure it’s a great experience anymore.

reply
upvoteby barbazoo5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
So is the quantitative difference in token use the only difference or do you think there's also a different qualitat? I'm on CC only and immensely happy. Very productive both at work and privately and at work I average around $250 a month which probably means nothing but it's little compared to my salary.

Is that the main concern though, cost?

reply
upvoteby disgruntledphd25 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
For me, at least it's that the newer Claude models seem optimised for one-shotting things, which is not what I want. As the amount of code per turn increases, I have a harder job keeping up and ensuring that it's doing what I want.

That being said, I had to nope out of a similar thing from GPT 5.6 today, so it appears to be a US frontier lab issue. Claude is particularly bad though, as it produces far too much code even when I tell it not to, unlike GPT (and Kimi) which at least listen to me a little better.

More generally, I want a usable human review experience, and Claude code doesn't deliver that for me.

reply
upvoteby infecto5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Quality is hard to measure and I would not say the concern is so much cost but the intersection of cost and time. Often I am jamming on something and I like being somewhat in the loop. So maybe same level of quality, I am using Anthropic modela for both harnesses, but I get to the output quicker and at a drastically lower cost.
reply
upvoteby everforward5 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Funnily enough, I would say almost the opposite. CC’s feature set is basically table stakes for an agent these days (does it have ACP yet? Very close to behind table stakes if not) and it has a lot of bloat powering that.

IMO part of it is that the underlying LLMs have gotten better enough that harnesses feel better even if they haven’t changed. I have a toy harness that barely implements the features you’d expect and it works surprisingly well. Like there’s literally nothing clever, it calls tools and that’s about it, and it still mostly does the right thing.

reply
upvoteby jazzypants4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Why would anyone ever need ACP? I'm not trying to be an asshole. I just seriously don't understand the value proposition.

Edit: lol, I don't think ACP is even actively developed anymore. It seems to have been merged into another seemingly pointless standard with an even worse name, A2A. [0]

[0] https://github.com/orgs/i-am-bee/discussions/5

reply
upvoteby jazzypants4 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
It's buggier for me than it has ever been before. I don't think that agentic coding always leads to such a buggy mess. I just don't think that the Anthropic front-end software team is very good at agentic coding.
reply