New ask Hacker News story: Ask HN: What is your current LLM-assisted coding tool?
Ask HN: What is your current LLM-assisted coding tool?
3 by HiPHInch | 2 comments on Hacker News.
Hello everyone, I’m testing and comparing various LLM-assisted coding tools, and I want to know which tool you are currently using in your daily development workflow. Here are some observations and questions I have: 1. Cursor and Windsurf - Both work nicely on local, but they use token-saving strategies: - With very long context, they may truncate important information, causing the suggested code to miss key details. - Even in normal scenarios, complex cases might exceed context or quota limits, interrupting suggestions. 2. “Roo Code” and API-based approaches - Directly calling paid APIs (e.g., OpenAI’s ChatGPT/GPT-4 API) works well but is expensive. - Some free or community APIs (open-source mirrors, community editions) can be unstable, rate-limited, or slow. 3. Augment Code - It’s said to be one of the most “intelligent” commercial products, but it’s also costly. - Many recommend its ability to rewrite, refactor, generate tests, etc., but for simple code completion, its cost-performance ratio may be lower than some smaller vendors or open-source plugins. 4. Refact.ai - Listed at the top on SWE Bench, it claims to support code refactoring, generating comments via LLMs, batch rewrites, and more. - However, it seems rarely discussed in developer circles. How well does it support? Questions for the community: - Which LLM-assisted coding tool are you currently using? (IDE plugin, standalone client, or API-based) - What are the main reasons for choosing it? (e.g., cost, response speed, context length support, feature set, etc.) - What pros and cons have you encountered during actual development? Specifically, how does it perform for debugging, refactoring, generating unit tests, automatic bug fixes, etc.? - If you have switched tools before, why did you switch? Thank you for sharing your experiences!
3 by HiPHInch | 2 comments on Hacker News.
Hello everyone, I’m testing and comparing various LLM-assisted coding tools, and I want to know which tool you are currently using in your daily development workflow. Here are some observations and questions I have: 1. Cursor and Windsurf - Both work nicely on local, but they use token-saving strategies: - With very long context, they may truncate important information, causing the suggested code to miss key details. - Even in normal scenarios, complex cases might exceed context or quota limits, interrupting suggestions. 2. “Roo Code” and API-based approaches - Directly calling paid APIs (e.g., OpenAI’s ChatGPT/GPT-4 API) works well but is expensive. - Some free or community APIs (open-source mirrors, community editions) can be unstable, rate-limited, or slow. 3. Augment Code - It’s said to be one of the most “intelligent” commercial products, but it’s also costly. - Many recommend its ability to rewrite, refactor, generate tests, etc., but for simple code completion, its cost-performance ratio may be lower than some smaller vendors or open-source plugins. 4. Refact.ai - Listed at the top on SWE Bench, it claims to support code refactoring, generating comments via LLMs, batch rewrites, and more. - However, it seems rarely discussed in developer circles. How well does it support? Questions for the community: - Which LLM-assisted coding tool are you currently using? (IDE plugin, standalone client, or API-based) - What are the main reasons for choosing it? (e.g., cost, response speed, context length support, feature set, etc.) - What pros and cons have you encountered during actual development? Specifically, how does it perform for debugging, refactoring, generating unit tests, automatic bug fixes, etc.? - If you have switched tools before, why did you switch? Thank you for sharing your experiences!
Comments
Post a Comment