It’s true there’s some magic effect from Claude code’s work. But still, often it’s not exactly the same infra and scaling than production grade. But for a customer I guess that’s perfect, they have a mean to make their own tools instead of relying on platforms to build those tools.

I Agree on the customer empowerment point.

I'd push back slightly on the production grade point. The models aren't the ceiling, the user's mental model of software is, depending on his experience/knowledge.

Someone just starting out will get working prototypes and solid MVPs, which is genuinely impressive. But as they develop real engineering intuition — how Git works, how databases behave under load, how hosting and infra fit together — that's when they start shipping production-grade things with Claude Code.

Based on what I'm seeing, the tool can handle it. The question is whether the person behind it understands what they're asking for. Anthropic, for example, mostly uses claude code to develop claude code.

That’s the exact definition our CEO gave of our job this week. That’s how he sees and expects us to work now. I feel some anxiety because that’s too much too fast. We went from « we need to fix every single bug we encounter » to « it doesn’t matter if there’s bugs as long as we ship a feature fast »

Isn't the AI sales pitch that you can do both?

The exact same prompt ? Everything depends on the prompt and it’s different tools. These days the quality and what’s build around the prompt matters as much as the code. We can’t feed generic query.

No I don’t agree. Just because it’s « boilerplate », that does not mean it’s worthless or doesn’t carry novelty. There is « boilerplate » in building many things, house, cars etc where to add real new stuff it’s « always the same base » but you have to nail that base and there is real value in it. With craft and deep knowledge and pride. Every project is different and not everything can be made from a generic out-of-shelf product

> Just because it’s « boilerplate », that does not mean it’s worthless

Of course it is not. It is needed, by definition.

> or doesn’t carry novelty.

Of course it does not. Why would a piece of code that simply fills a large C structure with constants be innovative?

> Every project is different and not everything can be made from a generic out-of-shelf product

Tangential to use of LLMs for boring boilerplate stuff.

A house doesn't seem a good example, because it is made of physical things.

from foundations import ConcreteStrip

ConcreteStrip(x,y,z)

Doesn't work for houses

There isn’t just concrete in a house. There is hundreds of things that could vary from house to house (even country to country and laws) so it’s more like the building blocs are not only imports of lib but the language itself (raw materials) which makes it a fit analogy for me

If found it better to split in smaller tasks from a first overall analysis and make it do only that subtask and make it give me the next prompt once finished (or feed that to a system of agents). There is a real threshold from where quality would be lost.

Our CEO, an expert in marketing has discovered Claude Code and is the one having the most open PR of all developers and is pushing for us to « quickly review ». He does not understand why review are so slow because it’s « the easiest part ». We live in a new world.

Discreet is not the same thing as embedded in your face with no hands involved and indiscernible from regular glasses.

Thanks for the link ! I’m very curious about their choices and methods, I’ll try it

I also do that and it works quite well to iterate on spec md files first. When every step is detailed and clear and all md files linked to a master plan that Claude code reads and updates at every step it helps a lot to keep it on guard rails. Claude code only works well on small increments because context switching makes it mix and invent stuff. So working by increments makes it really easy to commit a clean session and I ask it to give me the next prompt from the specs before I clear context. It always go sideways at some point but having a nice structure helps even myself to do clean reviews and avoid 2h sessions that I have to throw away. Really easier to adjust only what’s wrong at each step. It works surprisingly well

Usually the quote comes in a positive light. We won’t make a law/rule around it, it’s a principle so it’s meant to be short. So yeah you could argue about anything in any way you want, positive or negative. And if you want to be really precise then you make a law but it’s so precise it won’t cover edge cases. Don’t you agree that the baseline for most humans is to be in peace, find love, patience, joy, kindness, mildness ? You can manifest any of those traits to any stranger and you’ll likely have a positive impact right ? That’s the context of the Golden Rule quote I guess