[HN Gopher] Coding Agents and Use Cases
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Coding Agents and Use Cases
        
       Author : vinhnx
       Score  : 41 points
       Date   : 2026-02-03 08:41 UTC (3 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (justsitandgrin.im)
 (TXT) w3m dump (justsitandgrin.im)
        
       | makerdiety wrote:
       | I don't have any use cases at all.
       | 
       | Business is definitely not booming.
        
       | jillesvangurp wrote:
       | Lots of people making confident recommendations with the
       | experience of a few weeks of exposure. I adopted OpenAI's Codex
       | desktop app on day 1 of its release (a few days ago). I've done a
       | few things with it. But honestly still figuring it out as I go.
       | As anyone else in this space. Except for industry insiders, none
       | of us have more than a few days experience with this. The models
       | that got released last night are worse. Essentially everything
       | you read about this is people rushing out articles on the back of
       | at best a few hours of experience but otherwise just rehashing
       | what's in the press releases.
       | 
       | My views on this:
       | 
       | - the models don't matter as much any more. You can pick Gemini,
       | Claude, or Codex and get similarish results. Especially if you
       | are not a rocket scientist and aren't trying to boil the oceans
       | and are just trying to complete relatively straightforward
       | development tasks. You probably don't need the most expensive
       | models on "high". You get a new one every few weeks.
       | 
       | - The UIs and plumbing around the models matter a lot more. To
       | orchestrate agentic loops around these models is a lot of
       | plumbing and work. Claude Code and Codex are the two "it just
       | works" type options in this space. Claude had all the momentum
       | earlier than OpenAI. But Codex is getting a lot of glowing
       | reviews now. If you are more of a tinkerer, there are a bazillion
       | tool and model combinations to try out that don't meaningfully
       | move beyond what those two do out of the box. Your mileage may
       | vary. I'm mostly a codex guy. Because I'm lazy and the OpenAI
       | Plus subscription is a very good deal.
       | 
       | - Google is good at models but not that great at tools. Yet. And
       | they are worse at marketing them. If find their stuff very
       | confusing.
       | 
       | - Any advice on what is "best" here has a half life measured in
       | weeks. It can all be different in a few weeks.
        
         | reactordev wrote:
         | I treat any article on the subject as corporate output to lay
         | cover to say "we know AI" when in fact, they are at the same
         | place their customers are. Where we all are.
        
         | kostarelo wrote:
         | I do like Antigravity a lot and I use it on a daily basis. Are
         | you referring to that or something else? I do find their
         | marketing weird though and seems like their internal teams are
         | not yet fully aligned. (Jules, Antigravity, Gemini CLI, ...)
        
           | jillesvangurp wrote:
           | I've come across only a few of those. I'm not familiar with
           | Antigravity. That's what I mean with poor marketing. I've
           | tried out AI Studio, which is alright but not quite Codex
           | level good as far as I can see.
           | 
           | Honestly this smells a bit like the situation they had a few
           | years ago with a lot of different teams in Google inventing
           | new chat and video call tools. All of which then flopped and
           | got discontinued. Google exporting their own internal chaos.
           | How many coding tools can you have in one company?!
           | 
           | OpenAI and Anthropic seem more focused currently. I mostly
           | focus on OpenAI's codex because I don't want to maintain two
           | subscriptions. Switching tools is a bit disruptive and not
           | something I want to do every few days/weeks.
        
       | Uehreka wrote:
       | The answer to "which coding agent should we standardise on?" is
       | really simple: Don't.
       | 
       | The tradeoffs of the different models are complicated and
       | difficult to wrap your head around, and if you have the resources
       | to try a bunch and form a conclusion, next week new models will
       | come out and change the equation in small but difficult-to-
       | understand ways again.
       | 
       | The solution is to ask your engineers which models they like, get
       | them access to as many of those as you can, and expect their
       | preferences to change and price that in.
       | 
       | "But I don't have the budget to buy subscriptions to all the
       | models my engineers want! And there are compliance issues with
       | some of them!"
       | 
       | Note that I didn't say you have to get access to all of them: as
       | many as you can. And try to push the envelope as much as
       | possible. Get creative. Perhaps give engineers a $200/mo AI
       | coding budget and let them pick from a selection of
       | subscriptions. You're going to have different engineers using
       | different AI coding tools, and if you refuse to let them, your
       | competitors will.
       | 
       | Maybe in the future "standardizing on one coding agent" will be a
       | thing that makes sense. But that time is not now.
        
       | aavci wrote:
       | Are there security best practices for each of these tools or is
       | that too early?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-02-06 23:01 UTC)