logoalt Hacker News

ruszkiyesterday at 10:41 PM1 replyview on HN

For that you need to create something which you know exactly how you want to code, or what architecture is needed. In other words, you would win basically nothing, because typing was never the real bottleneck (no matter what VIM and Emacs people would tell you).

LLMs also make mistakes even way lower level than those one pagers allow you to control with the planning mode. Which I use all the time btw. And anyway, they throw the plan out of the window immediately when their tried solutions don't work during execution, for example when a generated test is failing.

Btw, changing the plan after its generation is painful. It happens more than not that when I decline it with comments it generates a worse version of it, because it either miss things from the previous one which I never mentioned, or changes the architecture to a worse one completely. In my experience, it's better to restart the whole thing with a more precise prompt.


Replies

9wzYQbTYsAIcyesterday at 10:58 PM

Ah, this is true - for my purposes, I've been directing the design and deliberating on the constraints and specifications for a larger system in tandem with smaller planning sessions.

That has worked well so far, but yes, you are totally right, there are still quite a few pain points and it is still rather far from being fire-and-forget "build me a fancy landing page for a turnkey business" and getting enterprise quality code.

edit: I think it is most important that you collaborate with Claude Code on quality in a systematic way, but even that has limits, right now - 1M context changes things a little bit.

show 1 reply