Comment by jeffreyrogers
6 days ago
Fable works very well for me on a moderately large codebase. I have had to correct it a few times or point it on the right track, but given how much faster it is at programming than I am that's a very minor issue (and most of these errors are because I underspecified what I wanted in the prompt, I can only think of two cases where it was genuinely wrong... that's a lot better than me in my professional career). Code quality is equal to what I would come up with (and better in areas I'm not familiar with) and the overall software engineering bar is higher because it doesn't get bored when I tell it to do refactors or write integration/regression tests that I would otherwise put off. Also makes it easy to audit code for things like missing audit logging or error notifications that a human would get bored doing.
The product is a fairly standard Ruby on Rails webapp with postgres as the DB. Application complexity is probably a bit higher than average for a webapp. So it's nothing that pushes the boundaries of software engineering, but it is a real product. Token budget has not been an issue for me. I pay for the Max plan ($200/month) and it is well worth it.
Fable is the clearly best when you have to do real coding.
Clearly, for you.
I've read the same opinions about Opus and yet it was gpt 5.5 pro via api tackling the hardest problems.
I have used now k3 for 3 days and it has consistently tackled difficult problems sol max could not (orientation optimization algorithms of random 2d shapes on a rectangle for glass cutting).
I have also other beefs with Anthropic models which have been getting smarter and more capable since 4.6, but increasingly worse at acting as assistants, they just want to "do" stuff their own way and ignore instructions often (even simple ones like not to commit, let alone complex ones).
What is your harness with every model ?
[dead]
Define "real coding" ?
For low-level x86 assembly coding, Fable is nowhere near to be as good as Kimi K3.