[HN Gopher] Claude Code on the web
___________________________________________________________________
Claude Code on the web
Author : adocomplete
Score : 284 points
Date : 2025-10-20 18:12 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.anthropic.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.anthropic.com)
| minimaxir wrote:
| I like how in the demo video there's a squiggle emphasis on
| Claude's "Good Idea!" in response to a user clarification, when
| it's more common among vibe coders that that _less_ glazing is
| better and they just want the LLM to write code.
| Redster wrote:
| Here's the link talking about the sandbox environment and
| features they're using for this Claude Code.
| https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/claude-code-sandboxing
| jryio wrote:
| Pair programming is still one of the best ways to knowledge
| transfer between two programmers in a high throughput manner.
| Humans learn by doing, building synaptic connections.
|
| I wonder if a shared Claude Code instance has the same effect?
| dingnuts wrote:
| The person driving is the one that learns the most in pair
| programming. In the scenario you've described, that would be
| Claude. LLMs don't learn.
|
| Doesn't CC sometimes take twenty, thirty minutes to return an
| attempt? I wouldn't know, because I'm not rich and my employer
| has decided CC is too expensive, but I wonder what you would do
| with your pair programming partner while you wait.
|
| The bosses would like to think we'd start working on something
| else, maybe start up a different Claude instance, but can you
| really change contexts and back before the first one is done?
| You AND your partner?
|
| Nah, just go play air hockey until your boss realizes Claude is
| what they need, not you.
| mr_mitm wrote:
| Just for the record, CC is about the cost of a Netflix
| subscription, and it responds faster than any human can.
| astrange wrote:
| You can get plenty of CC on a $20/month plan.
| myko wrote:
| > Nah, just go play air hockey until your boss realizes
| Claude is what they need, not you.
|
| This is a depressing comment.
|
| I am apprehensive about the future of software development in
| this milieu. I've pumped out a ~15,000 line application
| heavily utilizing Claude Code over a few days that seems to
| work, but I don't know how much to trust it.
|
| Certainly part of the fun of building something was missing
| during that project, but it was still fun to see something
| new come to life.
|
| Maybe I should say I am cautiously optimistic but also
| concerned: I don't feel confident in the best ways to use
| these tools to build good software, and I'm not sure exactly
| what skills are useful in order to get them there.
| losteric wrote:
| > I've pumped out a ~15,000 line application heavily
| utilizing Claude Code over a few days that seems to work,
| but I don't know how much to trust it.
|
| Can I ask what you built?
| charlesabarnes wrote:
| It's pretty frustrating that every release is IOS first without
| any timeline or expectation for Android
| outime wrote:
| This may explain it: https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/06/iphone-
| users-spend-apps/
| poly2it wrote:
| It is also relevant to know if a user who'd otherwise use app
| X on iOS would use X less on Android.
| pjmlp wrote:
| It is basically a US centric view of mobile OS market share.
| aaronbrethorst wrote:
| Anthropic is a US-based company.
| OJFord wrote:
| With a global market and extant user base.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Some companies would rather have a more international user
| base.
|
| https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide
|
| So maybe they rather please the home market, I guess.
| bahmboo wrote:
| Anthropic and Apple have a strategic partnership. It's a bit
| dicey but still seems to be in play. Which is interesting
| considering Google is a major investor and Apple is not.
| Anthropic wants Apple as a paying customer. Apple wants them to
| bend the knee.
| lvl155 wrote:
| Apple also has relationship with OAI. They're not
| preferential.
| bahmboo wrote:
| Yes but the question was why Anthropic is showing more
| attention to iOS vs Android.
| alwillis wrote:
| Not unusual; most high profile apps ship on iOS first, going
| back to Instagram [1], which was released October 10, 2010.
| Instagram shipped their Android version 1.5 years later.
|
| [1]: https://www.techtarget.com/searchcio/definition/Instagram
| spondyl wrote:
| Another, not incompatible explanation is that it's also just
| easier to develop for a handful of known iOS/iPadOS targets
| compared to Android's unbounded set of screen sizes and
| device specs.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| If your app runs on iPadOS, you already need to support
| every "screen size" (window size)
|
| Android is simply a much worse platform to make money on.
| Users spend <25% as much as iOS users. Why would they
| prioritize that?
| djmips wrote:
| In practice Android is much more difficult to handle the
| myriad of offerings - Have you ever tried both? To your
| other point, what app spend would Anthropic be worried
| about - they have a subscription model.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Android is a tiny market
| OJFord wrote:
| You probably mean 'in the US', where iOS is 58%. Android has
| a 71% global market share.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| No. Why do user counts matter? High user count but with >4x
| thriftiness / aversion to spending is not an attractive
| market over iOS.
|
| Globally in dollars spent, not human heads. iOS is over 2x
| larger than Android globally, and the gap is widening year
| over year.
|
| iOS spending growth outpaces Android, which even shrunk
| during covid while iOS spending continued to grow
|
| https://api.backlinko.com/app/uploads/2024/03/iphone-vs-
| andr...
|
| Anthropic makes money off product sales, not ad revenue, so
| wallets count more than eyes for this. Free users who are
| less than 25% as likely to spend are a burden not to be
| prioritized for a product business with free tier access.
| They need to spend much more to get a paying user on
| Android.
|
| If Android were the bigger market, they'd prioritize it
| bdcravens wrote:
| Yes, if all you consider are the number of devices in use.
| However once you segment by devices with performance to run
| a given app and financial demographics that match your
| target customer, the numbers change.
| richardw wrote:
| It's much harder dealing with all the complexities of different
| devices, screen sizes, OS versions.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/applesucks/comments/1k6m2fi/why_do_...
| brynary wrote:
| The most interesting parts of this to me are somewhat buried:
|
| - Claude Code has been added to iOS
|
| - Claude Code on the Web allows for seamless switching to Claude
| Code CLI
|
| - They have open sourced an OS-native sandboxing system which
| limits file system and network access _without_ needing
| containers
|
| However, I find the emphasis on limiting the outbound network
| access somewhat puzzling because the allowlists invariably
| include domains like gist.github.com and dozens of others which
| act effectively as public CMS'es and would still permit
| exfiltration with just a bit of extra effort.
| minimaxir wrote:
| Link to the GitHub for the native sandboxing:
| https://github.com/anthropic-experimental/sandbox-runtime
| navanchauhan wrote:
| I used `sandbox-exec` previously before moving to a better
| solution (done right, sandboxing on macOS can be more
| powerful than Linux imo). The way `sandbox-exec` works is
| that all child processes inherit the same restrictions. For
| example, if you run `sandbox-exec $rules claude
| --dangerously-skip-permissions`, any commands executed by
| Claude through a shell will also be bound by those same
| rules. Since the sandbox settings are applied globally, you
| currently can't grant or deny granular read/write permissions
| to specific tools.
|
| Using a proxy through the `HTTP_PROXY` or `HTTPS_PROXY`
| environment variables has its own issues. It relies on the
| application respecting those variables--if it doesn't, the
| connection will simply fail. Sure, in this case since all
| other network connection requests are dropped you are
| somewhat protected but then an application that doesn't
| respect them will just not work
|
| You can also have some fun with `DYLD_INSERT_LIBRARIES`, but
| that often requires creating shims to make it work with
| codesigned binaries
| fragmede wrote:
| Exfiltration is always going to be possible, the question is,
| is it difficult enough for an attacker to succeed against the
| defenses I've put in place. The problem is, I really want to
| share, and help protect others, but if I write it up somewhere
| anybody can read, it's gonna end up in the training data.
| koolala wrote:
| The attacker being an LLM where all humans have to be careful
| what they say publicly online is a fun vector.
| merrvk wrote:
| Nice its in the app, trying it out, seems damn buggy at the
| moment.
| jannniii wrote:
| I'm wondering if it would be possible to use the new skills
| feature or agents with this. Without the agents or the skills, I
| don't know how useful this would be.
| simonw wrote:
| It's running Claude Code CLI on a container for you, so skills
| should just work. I've not tried them myself yet though.
| ea016 wrote:
| No relations to them, but I've started using Happy[0]'s iOS app
| to start and continue Claude Code sessions on my iPhone. It
| allows me to run sessions on a custom environment, like a machine
| with a GPU to train models
|
| [0] https://github.com/slopus/happy/
| hmokiguess wrote:
| This seems to be the only solution still if using bedrock or
| direct API access instead of Pro / Max plan, the Claude Code
| for Web doesn't seem to let you use it that way.
| didgeoridoo wrote:
| You can log in to your CC instance however you like,
| including via Pro/Max. Happy just wraps it and provides
| remote access with a much better UI than using a phone-based
| terminal app.
| hmokiguess wrote:
| Yes, that's precisely what I meant! I was talking with
| regards to the parent article about Claude Code on the Web
| via Anthropic.
| mkummer wrote:
| Is the web interface open sourced anywhere? Looks great, excited
| to try it out
| ubj wrote:
| Very curious to see what usage limits are like for paid plans.
| Anthropic was already experiencing issues with high-volume model
| usage for Pro and Max users. I hope their infrastructure is able
| to adequately support running these additional coding
| environments on top of model inference.
|
| Just to be clear, I'm excited for the capability to use Claude
| Code entirely within the browser. However, I've heard reports of
| Max users experiencing throttled usage limits in recent months,
| and am concerned as to whether this will exacerbate that issue or
| not.
| CharlesW wrote:
| Anecdotally, as a Max user typically using Claude Code for >8
| hours/day, I've never experienced that. That said, I'm not one
| of those people using Opus for everything, and in fact I've
| been happy using Sonnet 4.5 even for planning.
| minimaxir wrote:
| I suspect the release of Claude Haiku 4.5 was done to help
| reduce usage costs for Anthropic and any use of Claude Code
| will differ to it if capacity is limited.
|
| EDIT: I had meant defer which is the first time I've made a
| /r/boneappletea in awhile
| chrisweekly wrote:
| "differ"? did you mean "default"?
| scubbo wrote:
| I imagine "defer"
| cube2222 wrote:
| This is quite nice!
|
| I'm using Claude Code locally a lot, occasionally with a couple
| parallel session.
|
| I was very happy when they made the GitHub Action - I used it
| quite a bit, but in practice I got frustrated that I effectively
| only get a single back-and-forth out of it, I can't really
| "continue the conversation without losing context" - Sure, I can
| respond to it in the PR it makes, but that will be a fresh
| session with a fresh empty context.
|
| So, as much as I don't like moving out of my standard development
| workflow with my tools, I think this could be quite useful. The
| ability to interrupt and/or continue a conversation should be
| very nice.
|
| My main worry is - usually my unit tests and integration tests
| rely on a postgres database running on the machine, and it's not
| obvious to me if I can spin that up here?
| anon3459 wrote:
| Use pglite
| radial_symmetry wrote:
| Check out Crystal if you want a good tool for managing parallel
| sessions locally https://github.com/stravu/crystal
| GreekPete wrote:
| https://docs.github.com/en/actions/tutorials/use-containeriz...
| cube2222 wrote:
| I'm not sure how this applies? We're talking about the
| "Claude Code on the Web" custom sandbox, not running Claude
| Code in GitHub Actions.
| JudoJJ wrote:
| This is kind of nice, as much as I love a good TUI, sometimes
| text editing in claude code can trip me up compared to a web GUI
| fny wrote:
| I've been using Happy Coder[0] for some time now on web and
| mobile. I run it `--yolo` mode on an isolated VM across multiple
| projects.
|
| With Happy, I managed to turn one of these Claude Code instances
| into a replacement for Claude that has all the MCP goodness I
| could ever want and more.
|
| [0]: https://happy.engineering/
| ShipEveryWeek wrote:
| This looks nice! I've been using terminus + tailscale to get
| similar results, but I'll give this a go
| lvl155 wrote:
| I am not a big fan of these. They're trying to bundle compute and
| jack up the prices down the road.
| simonw wrote:
| I had a preview of this over the weekend, notes here plus some
| example PRs: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Oct/20/claude-code-
| for-web/
|
| It's really solid. It's effectively a web (and native mobile) UI
| over Claude Code CLI, more specifically "claude --dangerously-
| skip-permissions".
|
| Anthropic have recognized that Claude Code where you don't have
| to approve every step is _massively_ more productive and
| interesting than the default, so it 's worth investing a lot of
| resources in sandboxing.
| extr wrote:
| It's interesting because I've slowly arrived at the opposite
| conclusion: for much of my practical day to day work, using CC
| with "allow edits" turned OFF results in a much better end
| product. I can correct it inline, I pseudo-review the code as
| it's produced, etc etc. Codex is better for "fire and forget"
| features for sure. But Claude remains excellent at grokking
| intent for problems where you aren't quite sure what you want
| to build yet or are highly opinionated. Mostly due to the fact
| it's faster and the iteration loop is faster.
| simonw wrote:
| That approach should work well for projects where you are
| directly working on the code in tandem with Claude, but a lot
| of my own uses are much more research oriented. I like
| sending Claude Code off on a mission figure out how to do
| something.
|
| Here's an example from this morning, getting CUDA working on
| a NVIDIA Spark:
| https://simonwillison.net/2025/Oct/20/deepseek-ocr-claude-
| co...
|
| I have a few more in https://github.com/simonw/research
| extr wrote:
| Very fair. Interesting how much feedback on models/tools is
| different right now depending on what you're doing.
| fragmede wrote:
| so hey by the way, have you discovered Wispr Flow or
| something similar so you can talk to your computer like
| Scotty does?
| ryoshu wrote:
| Agreed. I use CC a lot for exploratory work. It's great with
| fast iteration for throwaway code.
| vidarh wrote:
| It slows it down far too much for me. What I've found after
| swithcing to --dangerously-skip-permissions is that while the
| intermediate work product is often total junk, when I then
| start writing a message to tell Claude to switch approach, a
| large proportion of the time it has figured that out by
| itself before I'm finished writing the message.
|
| So increasingly I let it run, and then review when it stops,
| and then I give it a proper review, and let it run until it
| stops again. It wastes far less of my time, and finishes new
| code much faster. At least for the things I've made it do.
| username223 wrote:
| Do you have a practical sense of the level of mischief possible
| in the sandbox? It seems like a game of regexp whack-a-mole to
| me, which seems like a predictable recipe for decades of
| security problems. Allow- and deny-lists for files and domains
| seem about as secure as backslash-escaping user input before
| passing it to the shell.
| simonw wrote:
| If you configure it with the "no network access" environment
| there's nothing bad that can happen. Worst is you end up
| wasting a bunch of CPU cycles in a container somewhere in
| Anthropic's infrastructure.
|
| Their "restricted network access" setting looks questionable
| to me - it allow-lists a LOT of stuff:
| https://docs.claude.com/en/docs/claude-code/claude-code-
| on-t...
|
| If you configure your own allow-list you can restrict to just
| domains that you trust - which is enforced by a separate
| HTTP/HTTPS proxy, described here:
| https://docs.claude.com/en/docs/claude-code/claude-code-
| on-t...
| jngiam1 wrote:
| I got so used to having Claude Code read some of my MCP tools,
| and was bummed to see that it couldn't connect to them yet on the
| web.
|
| Pretty cool though! Will need to use it for some more isolated
| work/code edits. Claude Code is now my workhorse for a ton of
| stuff including non-coding work (esp. with the right MCPs)
| Stevvo wrote:
| Guess they couldn't name it "Claude Codex"
| mmaunder wrote:
| We were heavy users of Claude Code ($70K+ spend per year) and
| have almost completely switched to codex CLI. I'm doing massive
| lifts with it on software that would never before have been
| feasible for me personally, or any team I've ever run. I'll use
| Claude Code maybe once every two weeks as a second set of eyes to
| inspect code and document a bug, with mixed success. But my
| experience has been that initially Claude Code was amazing and a
| "just take my frikkin money" product. Then Codex overtook CC and
| is much better at longer runs on hard problems. I've seen Claude
| Code literally just give up on a hard problem and tell me to buy
| something off the shelf. Whereas Codex's ability to profoundly
| increase the capabilities of a software org is a secret that's
| slowly getting out.
|
| I don't have any relationship with any AI company, and honestly I
| was rooting for Anthropic, but Codex CLI is just way way better.
|
| Also Codex CLI is cheaper than Claude Code.
|
| I think Anthropic are going to have to somehow leapfrog OpenAI to
| regain the position they were in around June of this year. But
| right now they're being handed their hat.
| maherbeg wrote:
| Yeah this has been my experience as well. The Claude Code UI is
| still so much better, and the permissioning policy system is
| much better. Though I'm working on closing that gap by writing
| a custom policy
| https://github.com/openai/codex/blob/main/codex-rs/execpolic...
|
| Kinda sick of Codex asking for approval to run tests for each
| test instance
| rtfeldman wrote:
| You don't have to use Codex in its terminal UI - e.g. you can
| use it in the Zed IDE out-the-box:
|
| https://zed.dev/blog/codex-is-live-in-zed
| PantaloonFlames wrote:
| And also in emacs or neovim
|
| https://xenodium.com/introducing-acpel
| mmaunder wrote:
| Ah the tension between cybersecurity best practices and
| productivity is brutal right now.
| maherbeg wrote:
| lol yeah, but mostly just want to allow more types of reads
| for getting context, and primarily for test running /
| linting etc. I shouldn't have to approve every invocation
| of `pytest` or `bazel test`.
| fragmede wrote:
| --dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox isn't enough
| for you?
| durron wrote:
| Do you find this to still be true with the Sonnet 4.5 model?
| esafak wrote:
| I don't. Sonnet is faster too.
| extr wrote:
| IMO Sonnet 4.5 is great but it just isn't as comprehensive of
| a thinker. I love Anthropic and primarily use CC day to day
| but for any tricky problems or "high stakes, this must not
| have bugs" issues, I turn to Codex. I do find if you let
| Codex run on it its own too long it will produce comparably
| sloppy or lacking-in-vision type issues that people criticize
| Sonnet for, however.
| PantaloonFlames wrote:
| That's a curious approach. Why would you use both? Why not
| just use the more reliable dependable option for all
| purposes?
| wrs wrote:
| In my experience, there isn't a model that is more
| dependable for all purposes. They each have some unique
| strengths.
| extr wrote:
| Sonnet 4.5/CC is faster, more direct, and is generally
| better at following my intent rather than the letter of
| my prompt. A large chunk of my tasks are not "solve this
| concurrency bug" or "write this entire feature" but
| rather "CLI ops", merging commits, running a linter,
| deploying a service, etc. I almost use it like it was my
| shell.
|
| Also while not quite as smart, it's a better pair
| programmer. If I'm feeling out a new feature and am not
| sure how exactly it should work yet, I prefer to work
| with Sonnet 4.5 on it. It typically gives me more
| practical and realistic suggestions for my codebase. I've
| noticed that GPT-5 can jump right into very sophisticated
| solutions that, while correct, are probably not
| appropriate.
|
| Sonnet 4.5: "Why don't we just poll at an interval with
| exponential backoff?"
|
| GPT-5: "The correct solution is to include the data in
| the event stream...let us begin by refactoring the event
| system to support this..."
|
| That said, if I do want to refactor the event system, I
| definitely want to use Codex for that.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| I'm like 80% sure Sonnet 4.5 is just rebranded Opus.
|
| Sonnet 4 was a coding companion, I could see what it was
| doing and it did what I asked.
|
| Sonnet 4.5 is like Opus, it generates massive amounts of
| "helper scripts" and "bootstrap scripts" and all kinds of
| useless markdown documentation files even for the tinies PoC
| scripts.
| mmaunder wrote:
| Yes. Sadly. And it really does make me sad. I was rooting for
| Anthropic. Still kinda am.
| bgirard wrote:
| I have a very similar experience. I was heavily invested in
| Anthropic/Claude Code, and even after Sonnet 4.5, I'm
| finding that Codex is performing much better for my game
| development project.
| mmaunder wrote:
| It seems particularly good at high performance
| programming in low level languages.
| mi_lk wrote:
| What model are you using respectively? Not sure I share your
| observations
| mmaunder wrote:
| Have tried all and continue to eval regularly. I spend up to
| 14 hours a day. Currently recovering from a herniated disk
| because I spent 6 weeks sitting at a dining room table, 14
| hours a day, leaning foward. Don't do that. lol. So my
| coverage is pretty good. I'm using GPT5-codex-high for 99% of
| my work. Also I have a team of 40 folks, about a third of
| which are software engineers and the other third are
| cybersecurity analysts, so I get feedback from them too and
| we go deep on our engineering calls re the latest learnings
| and capabilities.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| Yeah, after correcting it several times I've gotten Claude Code
| to tell me it didn't have the expertise to work in one of my
| problem domains. It was kinda surprising but also kinda
| refreshing that it knew when to give up. For better or worse I
| haven't noticed similar things with Codex.
| mmaunder wrote:
| I've chosen problems with non-negotiable outcomes. In other
| words, problem domains where you either are able to clearly
| accomplish the very hard thing, or not, and there's no grey
| area. I've purposely chosen these kinds of problems to prove
| what AI agents are capable of, so that there is no debate in
| my mind. And with Codex I've accomplished the previously
| impossible. Unambiguously. Codex did this. Claude gave up.
|
| It's as if there are two vendors saying they can give up
| incredibly superpowers for an affordable price, and only one
| of them actually delivers the full package. The other
| vendor's powers only work on Tuesdays, and when you're lucky.
| With that situation, in an environment as competitive as
| things currently stand, and given the trajectory we're on,
| Claude is an absolute non-starter for me. Without question.
| corndoge wrote:
| Can you expound a bit on the problem domains? I am curious
| Aeolun wrote:
| I don't think Claude is actually incapable, you just spend
| a lot of time telling it to yes, please actually do the
| difficult thing. Do not give up halfway through.
|
| Codex says "This is a lot of work, let me plan really
| well."
|
| Claude says "This is a lot of work, let me step back and do
| something completely different that you didn't ask for."
| skybrian wrote:
| We need product reviewers who can demonstrate things like
| this in public. Without details, "it works for me on my
| projects" only goes so far.
| cesarvarela wrote:
| Can you share an example of the tasks you found Codex being
| much better? From my experience Claude Code is much better.
| mmaunder wrote:
| I can not. We're all racing very hard to take full advantage
| of these new capabilities before they go mainstream. And to
| be honest, sharing problem domains that are particularly
| attractive would be sharing too much. Go forth and
| experiment. Have fun with it. You'll figure it out pretty
| fast. You can read my other post here about the kinds of
| problem spaces I'm looking at.
| deadbabe wrote:
| Ah, super secret problem domains that have been thoroughly
| represented in the LLM training data. Nice.
| mmaunder wrote:
| I'm seeing the downvotes. I'm sorry folks feel that way.
| I'm regretting my honesty.
|
| Edit: I'd like to reply to this comment in particular but
| can't in a threaded reply, so will do that here: "Ah, super
| secret problem domains that have been thoroughly
| represented in the LLM training data. Nice."
|
| This exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of why coding
| agents powered by LLMs are such a game changer.
|
| The assumption this poster is making is that LLMs are
| regurgitating whole cloth after being trained on whole
| cloth.
|
| This is a common mistake among lay people and non-
| practitioners. The reality is that LLMs have gained the
| ability to program, by learning from the code of others.
| Much like a human would learn from the code of others, and
| then be able to create a completely novel application.
|
| The difference between a human programmer an an agentic
| coder is that the agent has much broader and deeper
| expertise across more programming languages, and
| understands more design patterns, more operating systems,
| more about programming history, etc etc and it uses all
| this knowledge to fulfill the task you've set it to. That's
| not possible for any single human.
|
| It's important for the poster to take two realities on
| board: Firstly, agentic coding agents are not regurgitating
| whole cloth from whole cloth. Instead they are weaving new
| creations because they have learned how to program.
| Secondly, agentic coding agents have broader and deeper
| knowledge than any human that will ever exist, and they
| never tire, and their mood and energy level never changes.
| In fact that improves on a continuous basis as the months
| go by and progress continues. This means we can, as
| individual practitioners or fast moving teams, create
| things that were never before possible for us without
| raising huge amounts of money and hiring large very
| expensive teams, and then having the overhead of lining
| everyone up behind a goal AND dealing with the human issues
| that arise, including communication overhead.
|
| This is a very exciting time. Especially if you're curious,
| energetic, and are willing to suspend disbelief to go and
| take a look.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Never hold regret for having honesty, it tends to lose
| its value completely if you only care about it when you
| have good news to deliver. If for anything, hold regret
| for when you didn't have something better appreciated to
| be honest about.
|
| The easier threading-focused approach to the conversation
| might be to add the additional comment as an edit at the
| end of the original and reply to the child
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45649068 directly.
| Of course, I've broken the ability to do that by
| responding to you now about it ;).
| mmaunder wrote:
| Thanks. I wasn't able to reply in a thread earlier - I
| guess HN has a throttle on that. So I edited the comment
| above to add a few more thoughts. It's a very exciting
| time to be alive.
| mmaunder wrote:
| lol, thanks.
| kobe_bryant wrote:
| this is absurd. no one needs or wants your AI generated
| answer that's a whole lot of nothing
| mmaunder wrote:
| Comments like this reveal the magnitude of polarization
| around this issue in tech circles. Most people actually
| feel this kind of animosity towards AI, and so having
| comment threads like this even be visible on HN is
| unusual. Needless to say, all my comments here are hand
| written. But the poster knows that, of course.
| johnfn wrote:
| You're getting downvoted because the amount of weight I
| place on your original comment is contingent on whether
| or not you're actually using AI to do meaningful work ot
| not. Without clarifying what you're doing, it's
| impossible to distinguish you from one of those guys that
| says he's using AI to do tons of work and then you peek
| under the hood and he's made like 15 markdown files and
| his code is a mess that doesn't do anything.
|
| Well, that, and it's just a bit annoying to claim that
| you've found some amazing new secret but that you refuse
| to share what the secret is. It doesn't contribute to an
| interesting discussion whatsoever.
| preommr wrote:
| > I'm seeing the downvotes. I'm sorry folks feel that
| way. I'm regretting my honesty.
|
| What honesty? We're not at the point of "the Godfather
| was a good/bad movie", we're at "no, trust, there's a
| really good movie called the Godfather".
|
| Your honesty means nothing for an issue that isn't about
| taste or mostly subjectivness. How useful AI is and in
| what way is a technical discussion where the meat of the
| subject matter is. You've shared nothing on that front. I
| am not saying you have to, but like obviously people are
| going to downvote you - not because they might
| agree/disagree but because it's contributed nothing
| different from every other ai-hype man selling a course
| or something.
| mordymoop wrote:
| I'm on the same page here. I have seen this sentiment about
| Codex suddenly being good a few times now, so I booted Codex
| CLI thinking-high back up after a break and asked it to look
| for bugs. It promptly found five bugs that didn't actually
| exist. It was the kind of truly impressively stupid mistake
| that I haven't seen Claude Code make essentially _ever_ , and
| made me wonder if this isn't the sort of thing that's making
| people downplay the power of LLMs for agentic coding.
| simplify wrote:
| Same here. I tried codex a few days ago for a very simple
| task (remove any references of X within this long text
| string) and it fumbled it pretty hard. Very strange.
| fragmede wrote:
| yeah I'm in the same boat. Codex can't do this one task,
| and constantly forgets what I've told it, and I'm reading
| these comments saying how is so great to the point that I'm
| wondering if I'm the one taking the crazy pills. Maybe
| we're being A/B tested and don't know about it?
| intellectronica wrote:
| Codex works much better for long-running tasks that require a
| lot of planning and deep understanding.
|
| Claude, especially 4.5 Sonnet, is a lot nicer to interact
| with, so it may be a better choice in cases where you are co-
| working with the agent. Its output is nicer, it "improvises"
| really well even if you give it only vague prompts. That's
| valueable for interactive use.
|
| But for delegating complete tasks, Codex is far better. The
| benchmarks indicate that, as do most practicioners I talk to
| (and it is indeed my own experience).
|
| In my own work, I use Codex for complete end-to-end tasks,
| and Claude Sonnet for interactive sessions. They're actually
| quite different.
| shmoogy wrote:
| Can / Does Codex actually check docker logs and other
| things for feedback while iterating on something that isnt
| working ? That is where the true magic of Claude comes for
| me. Often things cant be one shot, but being able to
| iteratively check logs, make an adjustment, rebuild the
| docker containers, send a curl, and confirm fixed is _huge_
| improvement.
| intellectronica wrote:
| Yes, in this regard it's very similar. It works as an
| agent and does whatever you need it to do to complete the
| task. In comparison to Claude it tends to plan more and
| improvise less.
| incoming1211 wrote:
| I disagree, Codex always gets stuck and wants to double
| check and clarify things, its like "dammit just execute the
| plan and don't tell me until its completely finished"
|
| The output of codex is also not as great. Codex is great at
| the planning and investigation portion but sucks at
| execution and code quality.
| ewoodrich wrote:
| I've been dealing with this on Codex a lot lately. It
| confidently wraps up a task, I go to check it's work...
| and it's not even close.
|
| Then I do a double take and re-read the summary message
| and realize that it pulled a "and then draw the rest of
| the owl", seemingly arbitrarily picking and choosing what
| it felt like doing in that session and what it punted
| over to "next steps to actually get it running".
|
| Claude is more prone to occasional "cheating" with mocked
| data or "tbd: make this an actual conditional instead of
| hardcoded If True" stuff when it gets overwhelmed which
| is annoying and bad. But it at least has strong task
| adherence for the user's prompt and doesn't make me write
| a lawyer-esque contract to avoid any loopholes Codex will
| use to avoid doing work.
| the_duke wrote:
| IMO gpt5-codex medium is much better as soon as the task
| becomes slightly complex, or the context grows a bit.
|
| Sora 4.5 tends to randomly hallucinate odd/inappropriate
| decisions and goes to make stupid changes that have to be
| patched up manually.
| lherron wrote:
| Still a toss-up for me which one I use. For deep work Codex
| (codex-high) is the clear winner, but when you need to knock
| out something small Claude Code (sonnet) is a workhorse.
|
| Also CC tool usage is so much better! Many, many times I've
| seen Codex writing a python script to edit a file which seems
| to bypass the diff view so you don't really know what's going
| on.
| WXLCKNO wrote:
| I agree with this and actually Claude Code agrees with it too.
| I've had Codex cli (gpt-5-codex high) and claude code 4.5
| sonnet (and sometimes opus 4.1) do the same lengthier task with
| the same prompt in cloned folders about 10x now and then I ask
| them to review the work in the other folder and determine who
| did the best job.
|
| 100% of the time Codex has done a _far_ better job according to
| both Codex and Claude Code when reviewing. Meeting all the
| requirements where Claude would leave things out, do them
| lazily or badly and lose track overall.
|
| Codex high just feels much smarter and more capable than Claude
| currently and even though it's quite a bit slower, it's work
| that I don't have to go over again and again to get it to the
| standards I want.
| pkreg01 wrote:
| I share your observations. It's strange to see Anthropic
| loosing so much ground so fast - they seemed to be the first
| to crack long-horizon agentic tasks via what I can only
| assume is an extremely exotic RL process.
|
| Now, I will concede that for non-coding long-horizon tasks,
| GPT-5 is marginally worse than Sonnet 4.5 in my own
| scaffolds. But GPT-5 is cheaper, and Sonnet 4.5 is about 2
| months newer. However, for coding in a CLI context,
| GPT-5-Codex is night-and-day better. I don't know how they
| did it.
| pkreg01 wrote:
| I totally agree. I remember the June magic as well - almost
| overnight my abilities and throughput were profoundly
| increased, I had many weeks of late nights in awe and wonder
| trying things that were beyond my ability to implement
| technically but within the bounds of my conceptual
| understanding.
|
| Initially, I found Codex CLI with GPT-5 to be a substitute for
| Claude Code - now GPT-5 Codex materially surpasses it in my
| line of work, with a huge asterisk. I work in a niche industry,
| and Codex has generally poor domain understanding of many of
| the critical attributes and concepts. Claude happens to have
| better background knowledge for my tasks, so I've found that
| Sonnet 4.5 with Claude Code generally does a better job at
| scaffolding any given new feature. Then, I call in Codex to
| implement actual functionality since Codex does not have the
| "You're absolutely right" and mocked/placeholder implementation
| issues of CC, and just generally writes clean, maintainable,
| well-planned code. It's the first time I've ever really felt
| the whole "it's as good as a senior engineer" hype - I think,
| in most cases, GPT5-Codex finally is as good as a senior
| engineer for my specific use case.
|
| I think Codex is a generally better product with better
| pricing, typically 40-50% cheaper for about the same level of
| daily usage for me compared to CC. I agree that it will take a
| genuinely novel and material advancement to dethrone Codex now.
| I think the next frontier for coding agents is speed. I would
| use CC over Codex if it was 2x or 3x as fast, even at the same
| quality level. Otherwise, Codex will remain my workhorse.
| catigula wrote:
| >I think, in most cases, GPT5-Codex finally is as good as a
| senior engineer for my specific use case.
|
| This is beyond bananas to me given that I regularly see codex
| high and Gpt-5-high both fail to create basic react code
| slightly off the normal distribution.
| asdev wrote:
| do you use the CLI or the web UI? or both?
| poorman wrote:
| Totally agree. I was just thinking that I wouldn't want this
| feature for Claude Code but for Codex right now it would be
| great! I can simply let tasks run in Codex and I know it's
| going to eventually do what I want. Where as with Claude Code I
| feel like I have to watch it like a hawk and interrupt it when
| it goes off the rails.
| dboreham wrote:
| This is going to be situation normal for 10 years: everyone
| will need to keep track of "model-du-jour" as each vendor makes
| incremental improvements.
| sabareesh wrote:
| Similar feeling. Seems it is good at certain things and if
| something doesnt work it want to do things simply and in turn
| becomes something that you didnt ask for and certain times
| opposite of what you wanted. On the other hand with codex
| certain time you feel the AGI but that is like 2 out of 10
| sessions. This is primarily may be due to how complete the
| prompt and how well you define the problems.
| mvkel wrote:
| This is why Anthropic is a zombie company.
|
| They put all of their eggs in the coding basket, with the rest
| of their mission couched as "effective altruism," or
| "safetyism," or "solving alignment," (all terms they are more
| loudly attempting to distance themselves from[0], because it's
| venture kryptonite).
|
| Meanwhile, all OpenAI had to do was point their training cannon
| at it for a run, and suddenly Anthropic is irrelevant. OpenAI's
| focus as a consumer company (and growing as a tool company) is
| a safe, venture-backable bet.
|
| Frontier AI doesn't feel like a zero-sum game, but for now, if
| you're betting on AI at all, you can really only bet on OpenAI,
| like Tesla being a proxy for the entire EV industry.
|
| [0]
| https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/53Gc35vDLK2u5nBxP/...
| F7F7F7 wrote:
| For non-vibe coding purposes I've found that my $200 Claude
| (Claude Code) account regularly outperformed my $200 ChatGPT
| (Codex) account. This was after 2 months of heavily testing
| both mostly in Terminal TUI/CLI form and most recently with
| the latest VSCode/Cursor incarnations.
|
| Even with the additional Sora usage and other bells &
| whistles that ChatGPT @ $200 provides, Claude provides more
| value for my use cases.
|
| Claude Code is just a lot more comfortable being in your
| workflow and being a companion or going full 'agent(s)' and
| running for 30 minutes on one ticket. It's also a lot happier
| playing with Agents from other APIs.
|
| There's nothing wrong with Anthropic wanting to completely
| own that segment and not have aspirations of world domination
| like OpenAI. I don't see how that's a negative.
|
| If anything, the more ChatGPT becomes a 'everything app' the
| less likely I am to hold on to my $20 account after
| cancelling the $200 account. I'm finding the more it knows
| about me the more creeped out and "I didn't ask for this" I
| become.
| fragmede wrote:
| Especially now that sama wants us to sext with ChatGPT
| mvkel wrote:
| > There's nothing wrong with Anthropic wanting to
| completely own that segment and not have aspirations of
| world domination
|
| It's very clear by their actions (not words) that they are
| shooting for the moon in order to survive. There is no path
| to sustainability as a collection of dev tools.
| jswny wrote:
| I find Codex CLI to be very good too, but it's missing tons of
| features that I use in Claude Code daily that keep me from
| switching full time.
|
| - Good bash command permission system
|
| - Rollbacks coupled with conversation and code
|
| - Easy switching between approval modes (Claude had a keybind
| that makes this easy)
|
| - Ability to send messages while it's working (Codex just
| queues them up for after it's done, Claude injects them into
| the current task)
|
| - Codex is very frustrating when I have to keep allowing it to
| run the same commands over and over, Claude this works well
| when I approve it to run a command for the session
|
| - Agents (these are very useful for controlling context)
|
| - A real plan mode (crucial)
|
| - Skills (these are basically just lazy loaded context and are
| amazing)
|
| - The sandboxing in codex is so confusing, commands fail all
| the time because they try to log to some system directory or
| use internet access which is blocked by default and hard to
| figure out
|
| - Codex prefers python snippets to bash commands which is very
| hard to permission and audit
|
| When Codex gets to feature parity, I'll seriously look at
| switching, but until then it's just a really good model wrapped
| in an okay harness
| libraryofbabel wrote:
| I don't think anyone can reasonably argue against Claude Code
| being the most full-featured and pleasant to use of the CLI
| coding agent tools. Maybe some people like the Codex user
| experience for idiosyncratic reasons, but it (like Gemini
| CLI) still feels to me rather thrown together - a Claude
| Clone with a lot of rough edges.
|
| But these CLI tools are still fairly thin wrappers around an
| LLM. Remember: they're "just an LLM in a while loop with
| access to tool calls." (I exaggerate, and I love Claude
| Code's more advanced features like "skills" as much as
| anyone, but at the core, that's what they are.) The real
| issue at stake is what is the better LLM behind the agent: is
| GPT-5 or Sonnet 4.5 better at coding. On that I think opinion
| is split.
|
| Incidentally, you can run Claude Code with GPT-5 if you want
| a fair(er) comparison. You need a proxy like LiteLLM and you
| will have to use the OpenAI api and pay per-token, but it's
| not hard to do and quite interesting. I haven't used it
| enough to make a good comparison, however.
| kelvinjps10 wrote:
| I did the opposite I switched to Claude code once the released
| the new model last week of the one before, I tried using codex,
| but there was issues with the terminal and prompting (multiple
| characters getting deleted) I found Claude code to have more
| features and less bugs, like the edit on vim for the prompt
| being really useful and find it better to iterate. Also I like
| more its tool usage and the use of the shell. Sometimes codex
| prefer to use python instead of doing the equivalent shell
| command. Maybe it's like the other people say here, that codex
| it's better for long running tasks, I prefer to give Claude
| small tasks and I'm usually satisfied with the result and I
| like to work alongside the agent
| purnesh wrote:
| My experience is similar, but for me, Claude Code is still
| better when designing or developing a frontend page from
| scratch. I have seen that Codex follows instructions a bit too
| literally, and the result can feel a little cold.
|
| CC on the other hand feels more creative and has mostly given
| better UI.
|
| Of course, once the page is ready, I switch to Codex to build
| further.
| catigula wrote:
| This is such an interesting perspective because I feel codex is
| hugely impressive but falls apart on any even remotely
| difficult task and is too autonomous and not eager enough.
|
| Claude feels like a better fit for an experienced engineer.
| He's a positive, eager little fellow.
| p337 wrote:
| On the topic of comparing OpenAI models with Anthropocene
| models, I have a hybrid approach that seems really nice.
|
| I set up an MCP tool to use gpt-5 with high reasoning with
| Claude Code (like tools with "personas" like architect,
| security reviewer, etc), and I feel that it SIGNIFICANTLY
| amplifies the performance of Claude alone. I don't see other
| people using LLMs as tools in these environments, and it's
| making me wonder if I'm either missing something or somehow
| ahead of the curve.
|
| Basically instead of "do x (with details)" I say "ask the
| architect tool for how you should implement X" and it gets into
| this back and forth that's more productive because it's forcing
| some "introspection" on the plan.
| CompoundEyes wrote:
| Claude Code is still good but I don't TRUST it. With Claude
| Code and Sonnet I'm expecting failure. I can get things done
| but there's an administrative overhead of futzing around with
| markdown files, defensive commit hooks and unit tests to keep
| it on rails while managing the context panic. Codex CLI with
| gpt-5-codex high reasoning is next gen. I'm sure Sonnet 5 will
| match it soon. At that point I think a lot of the workflow
| people use in Claude Code will be obsolete and the sycophancy
| will disappear.
| nadermx wrote:
| I'm just happy alternatives exist.
| mrcwinn wrote:
| We're moving almost entirely to Codex, first because often it's
| just better, and second because it's much cheaper. It's a bet
| that they're better now, but given capacity and funding, they'll
| be better later too.
|
| The only edge Claude has is context window, which we do sometimes
| hit, but I'm sure that gap will close.
| esafak wrote:
| You're using the metered API rather than a subscription, right?
| asdev wrote:
| are you using the web ui, cli or both?
| shireboy wrote:
| I really want this but for Azure Devops. If you're not familiar,
| Microsoft owns both Github and Azure Devops, and both do similar:
| git repos and project management. I can use Github Copilot,
| Claude Code CLI, etc. against code on my disk, including Azure
| Devops MCP. But what I can't easily do is like Github Copilot
| Agent and apparently this Claude Code on Web: Assign a ticket to
| @SomeAi and have a PR show up in a few minutes. Can't change to
| github for _reasons_.
|
| Would love any suggestions if anyone in a similar story.
| neilv wrote:
| Nit about doing your AI interfaces on the Web: I really want
| claude.ai and chatgpt.com to offer a standard username+password
| login without 2FA. The kind my privacy-friendly browser of short-
| lived sessions can complete in a couple clicks, like for most
| other SaaSes, and then I'm in and using the tool.
|
| I don't want to leak data either way by using some "let's throw
| SSO from a sketchy adtech company into the trust loop".
|
| I don't want to wait a minute for Anthropic's login-by-email
| link, and have the process slam the brakes on my workflow and
| train of thought.
|
| I don't want to wait a minute for OpenAI's MFA-by-email code
| (even though I disabled that in the account settings, it still
| did it).
|
| I don't want to deal with desktop clients I don't trust, or that
| might not keep up with feature improvements. Nor have to kludge
| up a clumsy virtualization sandbox for an untrusted client, just
| to ask an LLM questions that could just be in a Web browser.
| linkregister wrote:
| In the modern age of mass credential stuffing attacks
| exploiting password reuse, MFA is one of the most effective
| tools for reducing unauthorized logins. Companies that don't
| adopt it are risking unacceptably high levels of credit card
| chargebacks.
|
| I wish the standard were for companies to check new passwords
| against leaked password lists, e.g. what
| https://haveibeenpwned.com uses.
|
| I use a similar workflow and have found that websites that
| allow passkey-based login can avoid the friction of waiting for
| TOTP codes or magic links.
| amluto wrote:
| How about using supporting WebAuthn?
|
| The current claude.ai signin mechanism is rather annoying.
| aantix wrote:
| Does this web interface have support for AWS Bedrock?
| cesarvarela wrote:
| Does this work inside docker containers like Codex? Stuff like
| `testcontainers` is unusable with that architecture because you
| need access to docker itself.
| lysecret wrote:
| Yea it failed on testcontainers for me. The pnpm install worked
| fine though.
| lysecret wrote:
| Just played around with it the fact it's on the phone is a big
| bonus.
|
| I have setup a little workflow where given linear tags it sets up
| a work tree on my dev box installs deps and starts the
| implementation so I can take it over I prefer this workflow to
| the fully managed cloud based solutions.
|
| This kind of fits in for issues where I'm basically sure I won't
| have to take it over (and it can do it fully on its own). Which
| aren't that many.
|
| Very simple example there was a warning pop up on something where
| I thought there shouldn't be now it's done fully automatically
| from my phone in 5 mins. I quite like that these small changes
| become so easy.
| bgirard wrote:
| Looks promising.
|
| I got my environment working well with Codex's Cloud Task. Trying
| to same repo with Claude Code Web (which started off with Claude
| Code CLI mind you), and the yarn install just hangs with no
| debuggable output.
| arjie wrote:
| A thing I really like with Claude Code is how well it uses the
| bash scripts you give it. I also have a browser control MCP
| installed and it's pretty good for it to full-cycle around the
| approach. I have a staging database that it has the passwords to
| that it logs in and runs queries on. This whole thing means it
| loops and delivers good results for me.
|
| I'll try this, but the grounding seems crucial for these LLMs to
| deliver results that are fewer shot than otherwise.
| hugs wrote:
| which specific functions/features of the browser control MCP do
| you lean on the most?
| arjie wrote:
| I don't use it myself so to speak, except to fill in some
| things sometimes like passwords. The LLM is the user. It just
| uses the primitives it has (these are my paraphrases):
| scroll_to, expand_viewport, screenshot, select_dom_element,
| fill_input. This way I can tell it to implement a feature and
| verify it and it does so in a Google Chrome testing profile.
| Without the grounding, I've noticed that LLMs often produce
| "code that _should_ work " but then something else is
| missing. This way, by the time I see it, the feature works.
|
| I then have to go in and advise it on factoring and things
| like that, but the functionality itself is present and
| working.
| mdeeks wrote:
| I feel like these background agents still aren't doing what I
| want from a developer experience perspective. Running in an
| inaccessible environment that pushes random things to branches
| that I then have to checkout locally doesn't feel great.
|
| AI coding should be tightly in the inner dev loop! PRs are a bad
| way to review and iterate on code. They are a last line of
| defense, not the primary way to develop.
|
| Give me an isolated environment that is one click hooked up to
| Cursor/VSCode Remote SSH. It should be the default. I can't think
| of a single time that Claude or any other AI tool nailed the
| request on the first try (other than trivial things). I always
| need to touch it up or at least navigate around and validate it
| in my IDE.
| asdev wrote:
| so the biggest issue is having to pull down and manually edit
| changes? can't you just @claude on the PR to make any changes?
| mdeeks wrote:
| Yes, but my point is often times I don't want to. Sometimes
| there are changes I can make it seconds. I don't want to wait
| 15+ seconds for an AI that might do it wrong or do too much.
|
| Also it isn't always about editing. It is about seeing the
| surrounding code, navigating around, and ensuring the AI did
| the right thing in all of the right places.
| justinram11 wrote:
| Have you checked out Ona [1] (gitpod's pivot)?
|
| [1] https://ona.com/
| mdeeks wrote:
| This is possibly what I want? It's hard to tell from all of
| the marketing on the site.
|
| I want to run a prompt that operates in an isolated
| environment that is open in my IDE where I can iterate with
| the AI. I think maybe it can do this?
| simonw wrote:
| Not quite. This doesn't (yet) have an option where you can
| connect your local IDE to their remote containers to edit
| files directly. It's more of a fire-and-forget thing where
| you can eventually suck the resulting code down to your
| local machine using "claude --teleport ..." - but then it's
| not running in the cloud any more.
| elpakal wrote:
| > PRs are a bad way to review and iterate on code
|
| idk, we've (humans) gotten this far with them. I don't think
| they are the right tool for AI generated code and coding agents
| though, and that these circles are being forced to fit into
| those squares. imho it's time for an AI-native git or
| something.
| luisml77 wrote:
| I agree and I also think the problem is deeper than that. It's
| about not being able to do most code testing and debugging
| remotely. You can't really test anything remotely really... Its
| in an ephemeral container without any of your data, just your
| repo. You can't have the model do npm run dev and browse to see
| the webpage, click around, etc. You can't compile or run
| anything heavy, you can't persist data across sessions/days,
| etc.
|
| I like the idea of background agents running in the cloud but
| it has to be a more persistent environment. It also has to run
| on a GUI so it can develop web applications or run the programs
| we are developing, and run them properly with the GUI and
| requiring clicking around, typing things etc. Computer use, is
| what we need. But that would probably be too expensive to serve
| to the masses with the current models
| bgwalter wrote:
| I have never seen such a bunch of uncreative people who have
| never written a real application, never done anything artistic,
| never said anything intelligent try to ruin software development
| to the extent that the "AI" companies do.
|
| They want to turn everything into a bootstrap framework, which is
| probably the limit of their mental horizon. And many people
| maintain that the emperor is fully clothed and that the scam
| works.
| low_tech_punk wrote:
| IMHO, parallel tasks across multiple repos is not as useful as
| parallel tasks in one repo.
| jackconsidine wrote:
| > We were heavy users of Claude Code ($70K+ spend per year) and
| have almost completely switched to codex CLI
|
| Seeing comments like this all over the place. I switched to CC
| from Cursor in June / July because I saw the same types of
| comments. I switched from VSCode + Copilot about 8 months before
| that for the same reason. I remember being skeptical that this
| sort of thing was guerilla marketing, but CC was in fact better
| than Cursor. Guess I'll try Codex, and I guess that it's good
| that there are multiple competing products making big strides.
|
| Never would have imagined myself ditching IDEs and workflows 3x
| in a few months. A little exhausting
| rorads wrote:
| I think it's a lot less exhausting now that the IDE part is
| mostly decoupled. I can't imagine cursor continuing to compete
| when really all they're doing is selling tokens either a
| markup, and hence crushing your context on every call. Sorry if
| that sounds negative but it's true.
|
| I use CC and codex somewhat interchangeably, but I have to
| agree with the comments. Codex is a compete monster, and there
| really isn't any competition right now.
| grrowl wrote:
| OpenAI seems to limit how "hard" your gpt-5-codex can think
| depending on your subscription plan; whereas Anthropic/Claude
| only limits how much use you get. I evaluate Codex every month
| or so with a problem suited to it, but rarely gets merged over
| a version produced by Charlie (which yes is $500/mo, but rarely
| causes problems) or something Claude did in a managed or
| unmanaged session. ymmv
| dysoco wrote:
| So from what I can understand this is only meant to be used with
| Claude-hosted sandbox environments?
|
| Wouldn't work for my case since I need a lot of HDD space, GPUs
| etc. to run the thing I'm working on, but it would be great if I
| could run a Claude Code server in my server, expose the port and
| then connect via web or iOS interface.
|
| Sure I can use tmux/ssh but it's very impractical specially in
| mobile.
| yoavm wrote:
| I was just working on something similar for OpenCode - pushing it
| now in case it's useful for someone[0].
|
| It can run in a front-end only mode (I'll put up a hosted version
| soon), and then you need to specify your OpenCode API server and
| it'll connect to it. Alternatively, it can spin up the API server
| itself and proxy it, and then you just need to expose (securely)
| the server to the internet.
|
| The UI is responsive and my main idea was that I can easily
| continue directing the AI from my phone, but it's also of course
| possible to just spin up new sessions. So often I have an idea
| while I'm away from my keyboard, and being up able to just say
| "create an X" and let it do its thing while I'm on the go is
| quite exciting.
|
| It doesn't spin up a special sandbox environment or anything like
| that, but you're really free to run it inside whatever sandboxing
| solution you want. And unlike Claude Code, you're of course free
| to choose whatever model you want.
|
| [0] https://github.com/bjesus/opencode-web
| hnidiots3 wrote:
| I wonder why people don't just use Amp Code and use the Oracle.
|
| It's Sonnet 4.5 + GPT-5 working together.
|
| Codex just isn't as good as people make it out to be. OpenAI
| seems to train on a lot of JavaScript/Tailwind to make visuals
| look more impressive but when it comes to actual backend work it
| just fails more than it succeeds. Sonnet is much better at
| chewing through tasks and GPT 5 is great at consulting planning
| and analysis.
|
| Using Amp and asking it to check everything with the oracle leads
| to superior results.
|
| But no one on HN has heard of it. I'm guessing HN hates twitter?
| SalmoShalazar wrote:
| Not sure what your twitter comment is about, I use it and I've
| just never heard of this product. Looks cool, I will give it a
| test.
| nextworddev wrote:
| Developers may want to deny this, but it's getting dangerously
| close to maybe replacing 30% of developers
| simonw wrote:
| I continue to believe that making developers 2-3x times more
| productive makes those developers 2-3x more valuable, and the
| smart thing for companies to do is to take on 2-3x times the
| amount of work, or hire MORE developers and finally start
| crunching through their inevitably years-long backlogs.
| nextworddev wrote:
| Your view doesn't mesh with conversations I have had with
| most C-suite. Most firms outside of SV are seeing
| opportunities for cost reduction mostly.
|
| And you can think through with first principles to see why it
| won't expand developer hiring. Since AI progress is jagged,
| some industries will be affected in outsized ways while
| others may thrive more. But the increase in demand from new
| industries won't absorb the reduction in demand from
| disrupted industries.
| ed_mercer wrote:
| Is CC on the web able to spawn local containers? I would need to
| spawn a half dozen services locally in order to have a proper
| simulation of my actual working environment. Tool calling and
| integration with various microservices (e.g. postgres,
| playwright) is one of the most important uses of CC for us. For
| example, after telling CC to implement a feature, it needs to
| test that feature and confirm that any database changes are the
| way they're supposed to.
| robertwt7 wrote:
| This is very similar to Jules by Google! https://jules.google/
|
| Although I wish that the performance of Jules is worse than
| Gemini CLI. I hope that this is as good as the Claude Code CLI.
| kelvinjps10 wrote:
| I was hoping that it would work with the API.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-20 23:00 UTC)