[sbszllr]

The issue with many of these tips is that they require you use to claude code (or codex cli, doesn't matter) to spend way more time in it, feed it more info, generate more outputs --> pay more money to the LLM provider.

I find LLM-based tools helpful, and use them quite regularly but not 20 bucks+, let alone 100+ per month that claude code would require to be used effectively.

[ramoz]

Interesting, I have $100 days with Claude Code. Beyond effective.

[dist-epoch]

> let alone 100+ per month that claude code would require

I find this argument very bizarre. $100 is pay for 1-2 hours of developer time. Doesn't it save at least that much time in a whole month?

[nrvn]

what happened to the "$5 is just a cup o' coffee" argument? Are we heading towards the everything-for-$100 land?

On a serious note, there is no clear evidence that any of the LLM-based code assistants will contribute to saving developer time. Depends on the phase of the project you are in and on a multitude of factors.

[rsyring]

I'm a skeptical adopter of new tech. But I cut my teeth on LLMs a couple years ago when I was dropped into a project using an older framework I wasn't familiar with. Even back then, LLMs helped me a ton to get familiar with the project and use best practices when I wasn't sure what those were.

And that was just copy & past into ChatGPT.

I don't know about assistants or project integration. But, in my experience, LLMS are a great tool to have and worth learning how to use well, for you. And I think that's the key part. Some people like heavily integrated IDEs, some people prefer a more minimal approach with VS Code or Vim.

I think LLMs are going to be similar. Some people are going to want full integration and some are just going to want minimal interface, context, and edits. It's going to be up to the dev to figure out what works best for him or her.

[fnordpiglet]

While I agree, I find the early phases to be the least productive use of my time as it’s often a lot of boilerplate and decisions that require thought but turn to matter very little. Paying $100 to bootstrap to midlife on a new idea seems absurdly cheap given my hourly.

[rpastuszak]

So sad that people are happy to spend 100$ pd on a tool like this, and we're so unlikely (in general) to pay $5 to an author of an article/blog posts that possibly saved you the same amount of time.

(I'm not judging a specific person here, this is more of a broad commentary regarding our relationship/sense of responsibility/entitlement/lack of empathy when it comes to supporting other people's work when it helps us)

[owebmaster]

No, it doesn't. If you are still looking for product market fit, it is just cost.

After 2 years of GPT4 release, we can safely say that LLMs don't make finding PMF that much easier nor improve general quality/UX of products, as we still see a general enshittification trend.

If this spending was really game-changing, ChatGPT frontend/apps wouldn't be so bad after so long.

[mikeg8]

Finding product market fit is a human directional issue, and LLMs absolutely can help speed up iteration time here. I’ve built two RoR MVPs for small hobbby projects spending ~$75 in Claude code to make something in a day that would have previously taken me a month plus. Again, absolutely bizarre that people can’t see the value here, even as these tools are still working through their kinks.

[owebmaster]

And how much did these two MVPs make in sales?

If they just helped you to ship something valueless, you paid $75 for entertainment, like betting.

[dist-epoch]

You can now do 30 MVPs in a month instead of just one.

[gtirloni]

Reminds me of https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/d1sm26/behold_the_u...

[mrbombastic]

Enshittification is the result of shitty incentives in the market not because coding is hard

[panny]

Just a few days ago Cursor saved a lot of developer time by encouraging all the customers to quit using a product.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43683012

Developer time "saved" indeed ;-)