10 ms·
Two things I've figured out with pretty good certainty 1) on an existing codebase/hand written, even fable absolutely will "make a mess" if you do large changes
by Incipient 1mo ago
Two things I've figured out with pretty good certainty
1) on an existing codebase/hand written, even fable absolutely will "make a mess" if you do large changes at once, or don't check the output.
2) with detailed, WELL NUMBERED (Claude is remarkably good at following number references), multi-level design and build documentation Claude absolutely CAN produce moderately complex applications (crud with some lightly branching business workflows).
The corollary to (2) however is can you actually get that working code to be production grade, AND maintain it? that far I haven't got yet.
- _kulang 1mo agoI have quite a bit of success with Claude on Jira tickets as long as the tasks are scoped well. Put effort into the ticket, and fire Claude at the ticket with MCP. I essentially review the PR. But this is only possible because I have created a completely new python development workflow with fixed formatting, style, and unification of tooling around uv. We’ve also split our projects into smaller repos, some which function as libraries and some which are applications depending on those libraries. I think the key to success here is to limit what context is required to do development. I’d say it’s slightly more on the extreme side of “modular” than a codebase I would write otherwise