The summary is

The beauty is in the simplicity: 1. One loop - while (true) 2. One step at a time - stopWhen: stepCountIs(1) 3. One decision - "Did LLM make tool calls? → continue : exit" 4. Message history accumulates tool results automatically 5. LLM sees everything from previous iterations This creates emergent behavior where the LLM can: - Try something - See if it worked - Try again if it failed - Keep iterating until success - All without explicit retry logic!

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45735154

Points: 6

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45240289

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44962189

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

I get what you're saying that AI could write something that executes user input but with the way I'm using the tools that shouldn't happen.

Overall, React / Typescript I heavily let Claude write the code.

The flip side of this is my server code is Ruby on Rails. Claude helps me a lot less here because this is my primary coding background. I also have a certain way I like to write Ruby. In these scenarios I'm usually asking Claude to generate tests for code I've already written and supplying lots of examples in context so the coding style matches. If I ask Claude to write something novel in Ruby I tend to use it as more of a jumping off point. It generates, I read, I refactor to my liking. Claude is still very helpful, but I tend to do more of the code writing for Ruby.

Overall, helpful for Ruby, I still write most of the code.

These are the nuances I've come to find and what works best for my coding patterns. But to your point, if you tell someone "go use Claude" and they have have a preference in how to write Ruby and they see Claude generate a bunch of Ruby they don't like, they'll likely dismiss it as "This isn't useful. It took me longer to rewrite everything than just doing it myself". Which all goes to say, time using the tools whether its Cursor, Claude Code, etc (I use OpenCode) is the biggest key but figuring out how to get over the initial hump is probably the biggest hurdle.

Before the emergence of tools like Zero I wouldn't have ever considered attempting to recreate the experience of a Google Sheet in a web app. I've previously built many live updating UIs using web sockets but managing that incoming data and applying it to the right area in the UI is not trivial. Take that and multiply it by 1000 cells in a Sheet (which is the wrong approach anyway, but it's what I knew how to build) and I can only imagine the mess of code.

Now with Zero, I write a query to select the data and a mutator to change the data and everything syncs to anyone viewing the page. It is a pleasure to work with and I enjoy building the application rather than sweating dealing with applying incoming hyper specific data changes.

My friend and my lender has built up a giant Google Sheet which he uses with his clients and I've been slowly working to translate the logic in that Sheet into an application. It's been a lot of fun as I've been learning how to replicate the multiplayer aspects of Sheets into a React application.

It was the first time I felt like I could write up a large prompt, walk away from my laptop, and come back to a lot of work having been done. I've been super happy with the experience so far.

However, I added my CV to own personal website so that it can viewed by people online who come across my website through my blog posts. The intent being that if they enjoyed reading my content and wanted to learn a bit more about me, they wouldn't have to jump over to LinkedIn.