alt Hacker News- We narrowed it down to the tool we used to flash the code.
- 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.
I agree with your statement and perhaps my example is bad/too specific in this case.
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.