undefined | Better HN

0 pointstimr6mo ago0 comments

There’s really no functional difference. The VSC agent mode can do everything you want an agent to do, and you can use Claude if you like. If you want to use the CLI instead, you can use Claude Code (or the GitHub one, or Codex, or Aider, or…)

I suspect that a lot of the “try using Claude code” feedback is just another version of “you’re holding it wrong” by people who have never tried VSC (parent is not in this group however). If you’re bought into a particular model system, of course, it might make more sense to use their own tool.

Edit: I will say that if you’re the YOLO type who wants your bots to be working a bunch of different forks in parallel, VSC isn’t so great for that.

0 comments

chatmasta6mo ago

I think a lot of that feedback is simply an element of how fast the space is moving, and people forming their impressions at different stages of the race. VSCode Copilot today is a wholly different experience than when it first launched as an advanced auto-complete.

timrOP6mo ago

I agree. People either have never tried it, or tried it a long time ago when it was something else.

oefrha6mo ago

No, there’s pretty noticeable difference between different tools even when they use the same model and interaction pattern. For instance I’ve used both GitHub Copilot and Cursor interactive agents (which are basically the same UX) aplenty in the past couple months for comparison, and GH Copilot is almost always dumber then Cursor, sometimes getting stuck on the stupidest issues. I assume context construction is likely the biggest culprit; Cursor charges by tokens while GH Copilot charges by request, so GHC attempts to pass as little as possible (see all the greps) and then fail a lot more. Plus its patching algorithm has always been shit (I’ve used GHC since it came out as better autocomplete).

timrOP6mo ago

Meh. The context stuff is changing by the day, so whatever you're saying now will be out of date by next week. Regardless, you're basically saying that GHC is trying to optimize for cost, which is true for any provider.

Even if there's some slight immediate performance advantage for Cursor over GHC, the ability to trivially switch models more than makes up for it, IMO.

oefrha6mo ago

The question was whether Claude Code's better than GHC. "They may release a new version that bridges the gap any moment now" is a completely useless answer to that. And your argument is "people either have never tried it, or tried it a long time ago when it was something else", and I told you I'm comparing it right now, and have done the same a year ago, and many points in between, and GHC is inferior at every single point, and it's not slight. Cursor etc. wouldn’t have been this big if GHC was only slightly behind when it has such a huge early mover advantage and enormous backing.

timrOP6mo ago

I've used both, and you're exaggerating. Whatever difference in performance there is between providers changes constantly, and like I said, it's more than offset for me by the practical advantage of being able to switch models regularly.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

chatmasta6mo ago

timrOP6mo ago

I agree. People either have never tried it, or tried it a long time ago when it was something else.

oefrha6mo ago

timrOP6mo ago

Even if there's some slight immediate performance advantage for Cursor over GHC, the ability to trivially switch models more than makes up for it, IMO.

oefrha6mo ago

timrOP6mo ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse