H
HN HRCB stories | rights | sources | trends | system | about
home / www.bhusalmanish.com.np / item 47167733
+0.04 Why Developers Keep Choosing Claude over Every Other AI (www.bhusalmanish.com.np)
54 points by gmays 7 hours ago | 75 comments on HN | Neutral Editorial · v3.7 ·
Summary Labor Automation Neutral
This article compares AI coding tools, arguing that Claude maintains superior process discipline over competitors despite benchmark parity. The content primarily exercises freedom of expression through published opinion and analysis. Human rights engagement is minimal and incidental: Article 19 (freedom of expression) is implicitly supported through the act of publishing opinionated analysis, while Article 23 (right to work) receives mildly negative engagement by framing work as pure technical optimization without addressing labor protections, fair conditions, or worker displacement concerns. Overall HRCB directionality is neutral, as the article's primary purpose (tool comparison) remains largely orthogonal to human rights considerations.
Article Heatmap
Preamble: ND — Preamble Preamble: No Data — Preamble P Article 1: ND — Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood Article 1: No Data — Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood 1 Article 2: ND — Non-Discrimination Article 2: No Data — Non-Discrimination 2 Article 3: ND — Life, Liberty, Security Article 3: No Data — Life, Liberty, Security 3 Article 4: ND — No Slavery Article 4: No Data — No Slavery 4 Article 5: ND — No Torture Article 5: No Data — No Torture 5 Article 6: ND — Legal Personhood Article 6: No Data — Legal Personhood 6 Article 7: ND — Equality Before Law Article 7: No Data — Equality Before Law 7 Article 8: ND — Right to Remedy Article 8: No Data — Right to Remedy 8 Article 9: ND — No Arbitrary Detention Article 9: No Data — No Arbitrary Detention 9 Article 10: ND — Fair Hearing Article 10: No Data — Fair Hearing 10 Article 11: ND — Presumption of Innocence Article 11: No Data — Presumption of Innocence 11 Article 12: ND — Privacy Article 12: No Data — Privacy 12 Article 13: ND — Freedom of Movement Article 13: No Data — Freedom of Movement 13 Article 14: ND — Asylum Article 14: No Data — Asylum 14 Article 15: ND — Nationality Article 15: No Data — Nationality 15 Article 16: ND — Marriage & Family Article 16: No Data — Marriage & Family 16 Article 17: ND — Property Article 17: No Data — Property 17 Article 18: ND — Freedom of Thought Article 18: No Data — Freedom of Thought 18 Article 19: +0.12 — Freedom of Expression 19 Article 20: ND — Assembly & Association Article 20: No Data — Assembly & Association 20 Article 21: ND — Political Participation Article 21: No Data — Political Participation 21 Article 22: ND — Social Security Article 22: No Data — Social Security 22 Article 23: -0.06 — Work & Equal Pay 23 Article 24: ND — Rest & Leisure Article 24: No Data — Rest & Leisure 24 Article 25: ND — Standard of Living Article 25: No Data — Standard of Living 25 Article 26: +0.06 — Education 26 Article 27: ND — Cultural Participation Article 27: No Data — Cultural Participation 27 Article 28: ND — Social & International Order Article 28: No Data — Social & International Order 28 Article 29: ND — Duties to Community Article 29: No Data — Duties to Community 29 Article 30: ND — No Destruction of Rights Article 30: No Data — No Destruction of Rights 30
Negative Neutral Positive No Data
Aggregates
Weighted Mean +0.04 Unweighted Mean +0.04
Max +0.12 Article 19 Min -0.06 Article 23
Signal 3 No Data 27
Confidence 5% Volatility 0.07 (Low)
Negative 1 Channels E: 0.6 S: 0.4
SETL +0.07 Editorial-dominant
FW Ratio 60% 9 facts · 6 inferences
Evidence: High: 0 Medium: 2 Low: 1 No Data: 27
Theme Radar
Foundation Security Legal Privacy & Movement Personal Expression Economic & Social Cultural Order & Duties Foundation: 0.00 (0 articles) Security: 0.00 (0 articles) Legal: 0.00 (0 articles) Privacy & Movement: 0.00 (0 articles) Personal: NaN (1 articles) Expression: 0.12 (1 articles) Economic & Social: -0.06 (1 articles) Cultural: 0.06 (1 articles) Order & Duties: 0.00 (0 articles)
HN Discussion 19 top-level · 17 replies
ChrisMarshallNY 2026-02-26 16:27 UTC link
I've been using ChatGPT (Thinking). I like how it has learned how I do stuff, and keeps that in mind. Yesterday, I asked it to design an API, and it referenced a file I had sent in, for a different server, days earlier, in order to figure out what to do.

I'm not using it in the same way that many folks do. Maybe if I get to that point, I'll prefer Claude, but for my workflow, ChatGPT has been ideal.

I guess the best part, is that it seems to be the absolute best, at interpreting my requirements; including accounting for my human error.

ChadMoran 2026-02-26 16:30 UTC link
Model aside, the harness of Claude Code is just a much better experience. Agent teams, liberal use of tasks and small other ergonomics make it a better dev tool for me.
mark_l_watson 2026-02-26 16:33 UTC link
Could it be tooling like Claude Code? I just used Claude Code with qwen3.5:35b running locally to track down two obscure bugs in new Common Lisp code I wrote yesterday.
aquir 2026-02-26 16:35 UTC link
I’m quite happy with the Codex app.
pinkmuffinere 2026-02-26 16:36 UTC link
> Half their agentic usage is coding. When that's your reality, you train for it. You optimize the tool use, the file editing, the multi-step workflows - because that's what your paying users are actually doing. Google doesn't have that same pressure.

I wonder if this is a strategic choice — anthropic has decided to go after the developers, a motivated but limited market. Whereas the general populace might be more attracted to improved search tools, allowing Google/openai/etc to capture that larger market

bottlepalm 2026-02-26 16:41 UTC link
I don't think vibe coders know the difference, but often when I ask AI to add a feature to a large code base, I already know how I'd do it myself, and the answer that Claude comes up with is more often the one I would have done. Codex and Gemini have burned me too many times, and I keep going back to Claude. I trust it's judgement. Anthropic models have always been a step above OpenAI and Google, even 2 years ago it was like that so it must be something fundamental.
pgm8705 2026-02-26 16:42 UTC link
I also have always gone back to Claude after trying new models... until GPT-5.3-Codex, specifically with the new Codex Mac app. I've been pretty much full time with it for a few weeks now and have not missed Claude Code. It can over complicate things at times, but for the most part, it is providing working solutions on first go and following coding patterns that already exist in my app. With Claude, it would frequently knock out a feature with acceptable code quality, but be completely broken and require a round of debugging.

I'm even getting by without hitting limits on the $20/month plan, whereas I needed to be on the $100/month one with Claude.

rlk20 2026-02-26 16:44 UTC link
All developers are in love with that wonderful Claude:

https://archive.org/details/1950-Tide-Detergent-Ad

mosura 2026-02-26 16:44 UTC link
Mistral are quietly far better than all the noise would suggest.
istillcantcode 2026-02-26 16:44 UTC link
I prefer Googles. I can only afford the free models. I normally copy and paste my stuff into 4-5 models and compare the responses. Its probably a waste of time, but very mentally satisfying. I mostly program as a form of mental stimulation instead of trying to become a billionaire. Taking this perspective, using AI agents is not really the same experience, and less mentally stimulating than programming.
mrdependable 2026-02-26 16:45 UTC link
I use Claude for a few reasons.

1) I don't want to give OpenAI my money. I don't like how they are spending so much money to shape politics to benefit them. That seems to fly in the face of this being a public benefit. If you have to spend money like that because you're afraid of what the public will do, what does that say?

2) I like how Claude just gives me straight text on one side, examples on the other, and nothing else. ChatGPT and Gemini tend to go overboard with tables, lists, emojis, etc. I can't stand it.

3) A lot of technical online conversation seems to have been hollowed out in recent years. The amount of people making blog posts explaining how to use something new has basically tanked.

sidrag22 2026-02-26 16:46 UTC link
There is also the very lame auto win category that i happen to fall into...

I dont trust openai, or google. google has beyond proven that they aren't trustworthy well before the LLM coding tool era. I am legitimately not even giving them a chance.

Sadly I am assuming anthropic will at some point lose my trust, but for now they just feel like the obvious choice for me.

So obviously i am a terrible overall observer, but i am sure i am not alone in the auto win portion of devs choosing anthropic.

__alexs 2026-02-26 16:53 UTC link
I don't understand quite how Anthropic have managed to get so much mind share for Claude Code given the UX is pretty bad compared to something like Cursor.
IAmGraydon 2026-02-26 16:54 UTC link
Developers prefer Claude because that's their brand, a very intentional choice. If you have a very specific use in mind (like coding), you aren't going to go for the jack of all trades, master of none solution. You're going to go for the coding specialist, which Anthropic has squarely positioned themselves as. Props to them for it - they correctly predicted that LLMs can do many things, but perhaps the most valuable is coding as they're very well suited to it due to the rigidly defined syntax and high cost of engineers.
a11r 2026-02-26 16:55 UTC link
This resonates with my experience. At Morph we use gemini for well specified point coding tasks, and it does very well across millions of lines of code every day. We also use claude code as an engineering tool for our own codebase and it does better at being adaptive and for working on open ended issues.
theanonymousone 2026-02-26 16:57 UTC link
Claude the model or Claude (Code) the tool? I'm not sure what to think about an article that doesn't make it clear which one they are talking about...
anonzzzies 2026-02-26 17:35 UTC link
Gemini is supposed to have this huge context; Gemini cli (paid) often forgets by the next prompt whatever the previous was about and starts doing something completely different , often switching natural or programming language. I use codex and with 5.3 it is better but not there compared to cc for us anyway; it just goes looking for stuff, draws the most bizarre conclusions and ends up lost quite often doing the wrong things. Mistral works quite well on smaller issues. Cerebras gml rocks on quick analysis; if it had more token allowance and less rate limiting , it would probably be what I would use all the time; unfortunately, on a large project, I hit a 24 hour block in less than an hour of coding. It does do a LOT in that time of course because of its bizarre speed.
mowmiatlas 2026-02-26 18:32 UTC link
Well CC is awesome, there's that.

Codex is awesome too. Opencode is awesome as well. It's so easy to transition from one tool to another especially when one command in project root is what it needs to get up to speed.

But I actually feel like asking Opus to review Codex and vice versa gives me best results. Opus does push back on some reviews comments, sometimes Codex is overselling a feature, but at least to me it feels like I have more points of control, and different perspective even if I could simulate it with two terminal sessions lol

geldedus 2026-02-26 19:45 UTC link
Because Opus 4.6 it is better than any other AI Coder.
smt88 2026-02-26 16:37 UTC link
Qwen seems fine for analysis to me, but Opus 4.6 is far better to use as a sounding board or for writing code
dalenw 2026-02-26 16:38 UTC link
I've heard a lot of people prefer OpenCode to Claude Code, myself included. Having tried both, I find myself having a much better time in OpenCode. Have you tried it?

I'll admit it lacks on the agent teams side but I tend to use AI sparingly compared to others on my team.

ryoshu 2026-02-26 16:38 UTC link
Oof. I turned the history referencing off. I use ChatGPT for wildly diverging topics and it will bring things up that have zero relevance to what I'm currently looking for if history is on.
elevaet 2026-02-26 16:39 UTC link
I am too, and haven't really given Anthropic's stuff a fair shake as a result, and am so curious if I'm missing out or if it's the same shit different pile.
bonoboTP 2026-02-26 16:41 UTC link
They are heavily dogfooding. Coding is needed to orchestrate the training of the next Claude model, data processing, RL environments, evals, scaffolding, UI, APIs, automated experiments, cluster management, etc etc. This allows them to get the next model faster and then get the next one etc.

Making a model that's great at other kinds of knowledge/office work is coincidental, it doesn't feed back directly into improving the model.

WarmWash 2026-02-26 16:42 UTC link
It's more likely that anthropic feels that if they can crack just programming, then their agents can rapidly do the legwork of surpassing the other labs.
j2kun 2026-02-26 16:46 UTC link
> Google doesn't have that same pressure.

I doubt it. Gemini is heavily used internally for coding with integrations across Google's developer tooling. gemini-cli is not meaningfully different from claude code.

genghisjahn 2026-02-26 16:49 UTC link
I use Claude Code as an orchestrator and have the agents use different models:

  product-designer   ollama-cloud / qwen3.5:cloud
  pm                 ollama-cloud / glm-5:cloud
  test-writer        claude-code  / Sonnet 4.6
  backend-builder    claude-code  / Opus 4.6
  frontend-builder   claude-code  / Opus 4.6
  code-reviewer      codex-cli    / gpt-5.1-codex-mini
  git-committer      ollama-cloud / minimax-m2.5:cloud
I use ollama pro $20/month and OpenAI $20/month. I have an Anthropic max plan at $100/month.
colechristensen 2026-02-26 16:49 UTC link
Codex and Gemini don't do as good a job or can't do what I ask them.

The complexity of a project vs. getting lost and confused metric, Claude does a lot better than every time I've tried something else, that's it.

azinman2 2026-02-26 16:53 UTC link
I believe anthropic is the only one that lets you opt out of training based on your chats for the developer subscription plans? Is that right?
dandiep 2026-02-26 16:53 UTC link
For me, Codex does well at pure-coding based tasks, but the moment it involves product judgement, design, or writing – which a lot of my tasks do – I need to pull in Claude. It is like Claude is trained on product management and design, not just coding.
el_benhameen 2026-02-26 16:56 UTC link
I like this feature and rely on it too. I get that some people hate it and that it can make some pretty insidious mistakes when it uses it, but I’ve found it valuable for providing implicit context when I have multiple queries for the same project.

Worth noting that Claude also has a memory feature and uses it intelligently like this, sometimes more thoughtfully than cgpt does (fewer “out of left field” associations, smoother integration).

geor9e 2026-02-26 17:03 UTC link
They are talking about Claude Code, the terminal app, which uses Opus and Sonnet for models mainly.
quaintdev 2026-02-26 17:09 UTC link
Claude is good with code but I've found gemini is good for researching topics.
sjsjzbbz 2026-02-26 17:25 UTC link
They’re doing a lot of dev hostile stuff:

- limiting model access when not using claude code

- claude code is a poorly made product. inefficient, buggy, etc. it shows they don’t read the code

- thousands of open GitHub issues, regressions introduced constantly

- dev hostile changes like the recent change to hide what the agent is actually doing

However, they are very good at marketing and hype. I’d recommend everyone give pi or opencode a try. My guess is anthropic actually wants vibe coders (a much broader market).

nozzlegear 2026-02-26 17:58 UTC link
That was exactly why I had been a paying Anthropic customer as well – I trusted them more than I trusted OpenAI or Google. But I canceled my subscription this morning after the news that they've ditched their core safety promise [†], and they look likely to fold to the Pentagon's demands on autonomous weapons/surveillance as well.

[†] https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/25/tech/anthropic-safety-policy-...

geldedus 2026-02-26 19:46 UTC link
The title is about developers, not vibe coders (no, it is not the same thing)
Editorial Channel
What the content says
+0.20
Article 19 Freedom of Expression
Medium Advocacy Framing
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
+0.20

Article presents detailed opinion and analysis about AI tools with explicit personal advocacy. Author advocates for Claude's advantages and publishes critical analysis of competitors. Demonstrates exercise of freedom to express views publicly.

+0.10
Article 26 Education
Low Advocacy
Editorial
+0.10
SETL
+0.10

Article mentions 'learning in public' and skill development in AI and coding. Author advocates for knowledge-sharing and continuous learning. Weak engagement with education as knowledge transmission and professional development, though not framed as universal educational right.

-0.10
Article 23 Work & Equal Pay
Medium Framing
Editorial
-0.10
SETL
-0.10

Article extensively discusses work and productivity in coding context, but frames it entirely as technical optimization problem. Treats work as mechanical task (reading files, making edits, staying on task) rather than engaging with labor rights, fair wages, working conditions, or worker protections. No discussion of AI's impact on employment.

ND
Preamble Preamble

No observable engagement with foundational principles of human dignity, justice, or peace

ND
Article 1 Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood

No discussion of equality of all humans in dignity or rights

ND
Article 2 Non-Discrimination

No discussion of freedom from discrimination

ND
Article 3 Life, Liberty, Security

No discussion of right to life, liberty, or security

ND
Article 4 No Slavery

No engagement with slavery or servitude

ND
Article 5 No Torture

No discussion of torture or cruel, inhuman treatment

ND
Article 6 Legal Personhood

No engagement with right to recognition before law

ND
Article 7 Equality Before Law

No discussion of equal protection before law

ND
Article 8 Right to Remedy

No engagement with access to justice or remedy

ND
Article 9 No Arbitrary Detention

No discussion of arbitrary arrest or detention

ND
Article 10 Fair Hearing

No engagement with fair trial or due process

ND
Article 11 Presumption of Innocence

No discussion of presumption of innocence

ND
Article 12 Privacy

No engagement with privacy or protection of reputation

ND
Article 13 Freedom of Movement

No discussion of freedom of movement within and across borders

ND
Article 14 Asylum

No engagement with right to seek asylum

ND
Article 15 Nationality

No discussion of right to nationality

ND
Article 16 Marriage & Family

No engagement with family rights or marriage

ND
Article 18 Freedom of Thought

No discussion of freedom of thought, conscience, or religion

ND
Article 20 Assembly & Association

No discussion of freedom of assembly or association

ND
Article 21 Political Participation

No engagement with political participation or governance

ND
Article 22 Social Security

No discussion of social security or welfare

ND
Article 24 Rest & Leisure

No discussion of right to rest and leisure

ND
Article 25 Standard of Living

No engagement with standards of living, health services, or social security

ND
Article 27 Cultural Participation

No discussion of participation in cultural or scientific life

ND
Article 28 Social & International Order

No engagement with social and international order for realization of rights

ND
Article 29 Duties to Community

No discussion of duties and responsibilities to community

ND
Article 30 No Destruction of Rights

No engagement with prevention of destruction or limitation of rights
Structural Channel
What the site does
0.00
Article 19 Freedom of Expression
Medium Advocacy Framing
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.20

Blog platform provides public publishing without apparent editorial restriction or censorship. Structural support is neutral; privacy tracking present without explicit policy slightly tempers the structural score.

0.00
Article 23 Work & Equal Pay
Medium Framing
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
-0.10

Blog itself is product of work; author discusses workflow and task completion. However, provides no structural engagement with labor conditions, worker safeguards, or displacement concerns. Implicitly normalizes automation without labor considerations.

0.00
Article 26 Education
Low Advocacy
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.10

Blog structure facilitates knowledge sharing and learning resources. Domain mission emphasizes learning as practice. Structural support for educational content is present but limited to professional/technical domain.

ND
Preamble Preamble

Site structure does not surface engagement with UDHR foundational concepts

ND
Article 1 Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood

No structural signal regarding universal equality

ND
Article 2 Non-Discrimination

No structural signal regarding non-discrimination

ND
Article 3 Life, Liberty, Security

No structural signal regarding personal security

ND
Article 4 No Slavery

No structural signal regarding freedom from bondage

ND
Article 5 No Torture

No structural signal regarding protection from abuse

ND
Article 6 Legal Personhood

No structural signal regarding legal personhood

ND
Article 7 Equality Before Law

No structural signal regarding legal equality

ND
Article 8 Right to Remedy

No structural signal regarding judicial remedies

ND
Article 9 No Arbitrary Detention

No structural signal regarding arrest prevention

ND
Article 10 Fair Hearing

No structural signal regarding judicial fairness

ND
Article 11 Presumption of Innocence

No structural signal regarding legal presumption

ND
Article 12 Privacy

Site employs tracking and advertising without privacy policy disclosure

ND
Article 13 Freedom of Movement

No structural signal regarding movement rights

ND
Article 14 Asylum

No structural signal regarding asylum access

ND
Article 15 Nationality

No structural signal regarding nationality

ND
Article 16 Marriage & Family

No structural signal regarding family

ND
Article 18 Freedom of Thought

No structural signal regarding conscience rights

ND
Article 20 Assembly & Association

No structural signal regarding assembly

ND
Article 21 Political Participation

No structural signal regarding political rights

ND
Article 22 Social Security

No structural signal regarding social services

ND
Article 24 Rest & Leisure

No structural signal regarding rest or leisure

ND
Article 25 Standard of Living

No structural signal regarding welfare or health

ND
Article 27 Cultural Participation

No structural signal regarding cultural participation

ND
Article 28 Social & International Order

No structural signal regarding systemic rights frameworks

ND
Article 29 Duties to Community

No structural signal regarding community responsibilities

ND
Article 30 No Destruction of Rights

No structural signal regarding meta-protection of rights
Supplementary Signals
Epistemic Quality
0.61
Propaganda Flags
2 techniques detected
doubt
Repeated emphasis on competitors' failure modes: 'They loop more often. They lose track of what they were doing mid-sequence. They make edits that break surrounding context. They need more steering to stay on track.'
bandwagon
'Developers try it. Developers complain. They go back to Claude. This has happened three or four times now, and the pattern is consistent enough that it deserves an explanation.'
Solution Orientation
No data
Emotional Tone
No data
Stakeholder Voice
No data
Temporal Framing
No data
Geographic Scope
No data
Complexity
No data
Transparency
No data
Event Timeline 20 events
2026-02-26 22:04 eval_success Evaluated: Neutral (0.01) - -
2026-02-26 22:04 rater_validation_warn Validation warnings for model llama-4-scout-wai: 29W 29R - -
2026-02-26 21:21 dlq Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Why Developers Keep Choosing Claude over Every Other AI - -
2026-02-26 21:19 rate_limit OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b - -
2026-02-26 21:18 rate_limit OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b - -
2026-02-26 21:17 rate_limit OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b - -
2026-02-26 18:42 dlq Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Why Developers Keep Choosing Claude over Every Other AI - -
2026-02-26 18:41 dlq Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Why Developers Keep Choosing Claude over Every Other AI - -
2026-02-26 18:40 dlq Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Why Developers Keep Choosing Claude over Every Other AI - -
2026-02-26 18:39 dlq Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Why Developers Keep Choosing Claude over Every Other AI - -
2026-02-26 18:38 dlq Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Why Developers Keep Choosing Claude over Every Other AI - -
2026-02-26 18:38 dlq Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Why Developers Keep Choosing Claude over Every Other AI - -
2026-02-26 18:38 dlq Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Why Developers Keep Choosing Claude over Every Other AI - -
2026-02-26 18:36 dlq Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Why Developers Keep Choosing Claude over Every Other AI - -
2026-02-26 18:36 dlq Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Why Developers Keep Choosing Claude over Every Other AI - -
2026-02-26 18:34 dlq Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Why Developers Keep Choosing Claude over Every Other AI - -
2026-02-26 18:34 dlq Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Why Developers Keep Choosing Claude over Every Other AI - -
2026-02-26 18:33 dlq Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Why Developers Keep Choosing Claude over Every Other AI - -
2026-02-26 18:32 credit_exhausted Credit balance too low, retrying in 251s - -
2026-02-26 18:31 credit_exhausted Credit balance too low, retrying in 302s - -
About HRCB | By Right | HN Guidelines | HN FAQ | Source | UDHR | RSS
build d633cd0+ahgg · deployed 2026-02-26 22:27 UTC · evaluated 2026-02-26 22:10:52 UTC