It really helps where the code I'm writing fits the broad description of boilerplate.
Need to integrate Stripe with the Clerk API in my Astro project? Claude's all over that. 300% faster. I think of it like, if there was a package that did exactly what I wanted, I'd use that package. There just happens not to be; but Claude excels at package-like code.
But as soon as I need to write any unique code – the code that makes my app my app – I find it's perhaps a touch faster in the moment, but the long-term result isn't faster.
Because now I don't understand my code, right? How could I. I didn't write it. So as soon as something goes wrong, or I want to add a feature, either I exacerbate this problem by getting Claude to do it, or I have to finally put in the work that I should have put in the first time.
Or I have to spend about the same amount of time creating a CLAUDE.md that I would have if I'd just figured out the code myself. Except now the thing I learned is how to tell a machine how to do something that I actually enjoy doing myself. So I never learn; on the contrary, I feel dumber. Which seems a bit weird.
And if I choose the lazy option here and keep deferring my knowledge to Claude, now I'm charging customers for a thing that I 'vibe coded'. And frankly if you're doing that I don't know how you sleep at night.
This. LLMs are good at stuff that is very general (is often in the dataset). What i gain most from LLM is when i use it to teach me - like extended documentation.
But to make unique solutions you will get pretty random results and worse you are not building understanding and domain knowledge of your program.
Claude Code sounds cool until it makes 3 changes at once 2 of which you are unsure if they are required or if they wont't break something else. I like it for scripts, data transformations and self contained small programs where i can easily verify correctness.
> What i gain most from LLM is when i use it to teach me - like extended documentation.
This, yes. What I do now is use Claude but expressly tell it do not edit my code, just show me, I want to learn. I'm not a very experienced dev so often it'll show me a pattern that I'm unfamiliar with.
I'll use that new knowledge, but then go and type out the code myself. This is slower, in the moment. But I am convinced that the long-term results are better (for me).
Need to integrate Stripe with the Clerk API in my Astro project? Claude's all over that. 300% faster. I think of it like, if there was a package that did exactly what I wanted, I'd use that package. There just happens not to be; but Claude excels at package-like code.
But as soon as I need to write any unique code – the code that makes my app my app – I find it's perhaps a touch faster in the moment, but the long-term result isn't faster.
Because now I don't understand my code, right? How could I. I didn't write it. So as soon as something goes wrong, or I want to add a feature, either I exacerbate this problem by getting Claude to do it, or I have to finally put in the work that I should have put in the first time.
Or I have to spend about the same amount of time creating a CLAUDE.md that I would have if I'd just figured out the code myself. Except now the thing I learned is how to tell a machine how to do something that I actually enjoy doing myself. So I never learn; on the contrary, I feel dumber. Which seems a bit weird.
And if I choose the lazy option here and keep deferring my knowledge to Claude, now I'm charging customers for a thing that I 'vibe coded'. And frankly if you're doing that I don't know how you sleep at night.