Maybe a complement. A well designed software ideally makes it easy for developer to contribute and avoid errors. It includes a lot of system / structure and documentation that ensures nothing gets broken or overlooked.
In such a context also a coding agent has it much easier. But establishing that or adding something beyond what's already safely established, here high intelligence models really pay off
I do agree , it could be an insult to any software project probably ? But I do value more speed of iteration/verification cycle vs another 3% in cursorBench . At this point it’s business logic not the code that caused me troubles and extra thinking
Fable is significantly better at helping me think through (and untangle) business logic problems as well. I actually rarely use it for implementation because Opus 5 is good enough for my use cases.
Maybe a complement. A well designed software ideally makes it easy for developer to contribute and avoid errors. It includes a lot of system / structure and documentation that ensures nothing gets broken or overlooked.
In such a context also a coding agent has it much easier. But establishing that or adding something beyond what's already safely established, here high intelligence models really pay off
Most of us just shovel CRUD, we really should be honest with ourselves.
I do agree , it could be an insult to any software project probably ? But I do value more speed of iteration/verification cycle vs another 3% in cursorBench . At this point it’s business logic not the code that caused me troubles and extra thinking
Fable is significantly better at helping me think through (and untangle) business logic problems as well. I actually rarely use it for implementation because Opus 5 is good enough for my use cases.
YMMV.
It's not insulting. Not every problem is a frontier problem.
Interpretation is in the eye of the beholder :-)