[CurleighBraces]

Yeah if you've not used codex/agent tooling yet it's a paradigm shift in the way of working, and once you get it it's very very difficult to go back to the copy-pasta technique.

There's obviously a whole heap of hype to cut through here, but there is real value to be had.

For example yesterday I had a bug where my embedded device was hard crashing when I called reset. We narrowed it down to the tool we used to flash the code.

I downloaded the repository, jumped into codex, explained the symptoms and it found and fixed the bug in less than ten minutes.

There is absolutely no way I'd of been able to achieve that speed of resolution myself.

[Bewelge]

- We narrowed it down to the tool we used to flash the code.

- I downloaded the repository, jumped into codex, explained the symptoms and it found and fixed the bug in less than ten minutes.

Change the second step to: - I downloaded the repository, explained the symptoms, copied the relevant files into Claude Web and 10 minutes later it had provided me with the solution to the bug.

Now I definitely see the ergonomic improvement of Claude running directly in your directory, saving you copy/paste twice. But in my experience the hard parts are explaining the symptoms and deciding what goes into the context.

And let's face it, in both scenarios you fixed a bug in 10-15 minutes which might have taken you a whole hour/day/week before. It's safe to say that LLMs are an incredible technological advancement. But the discussion about tooling feels like vim vs emacs vs IDEs. Maybe you save a few minutes with one tool over the other, but that saving is often blown out of proportion. The speedup I gain from LLMs (on some tasks) is incredible. But it's certainly not due to the interface I use them in.

Also I do believe LLM/agent integrations in your IDE are the obvious future. But the current implementations still add enough friction that I don't use them as daily drivers.

[CurleighBraces]

I agree with your statement and perhaps my example is bad/too specific in this case.

Once I started working this way however, I found myself starting to adapt to it.

It's not unusual now to find myself with at least a couple of simultaneous coding sessions, which I couldn't see myself doing with the friction that using Claude Web/Codex web provides.

I also entirely agree that there's going to be a lot of innovation here.

IDEs imo will change to become increasingly focused on reading/reviewing code rather than writing, and in fact might look entirely different.

[Bewelge]

> It's not unusual now to find myself with at least a couple of simultaneous coding sessions, which I couldn't see myself doing with the friction that using Claude Web/Codex web provides.

I envy you for that. I'm not there yet. I also notice that actually writing the code helps me think through problems and now I sometimes struggle because you have to formulate problems up front. Still have some brain rewiring to do :)

[CurleighBraces]

I think DHH said it best recently when he stated

"I can literally feel competence draining out of my fingers"

[theshrike79]

Why would you copy files anywhere?

My daily process is like this:

Claude plans (Opus 4.5)

Claude implements (Opus at work, Sonnet at home - I only have the $20 plan personally :P )

After implementation the relevant files are staged

Then I start a codex tab, tell it to review the changes in the staged files

I read through the review, if it seems valid or has critical issues ->

Clear context on Claude, give it the review and ask it to evaluate if it's valid.

Contemplate on the diff of both responses (Codex is sometimes a bit pedantic or doesn't get the wider context of things) and tell Claude what to fix

If I'm at home and Claude's quota is full, I use ampcode's free tier to implement the fix.