Hacker News Reader

Comment by WarmWash | Hacker News Reader

Gemini is the most paradoxical model because it benchmarks great even in private benchmarks done by regular people, Deep Mind is unquestionably full of capable engineers with incredible skill, and personally Gemini has been great for my day job and my coding for fun (not for profit) endeavors. Switching between it and 4.6 in antigravity and I don't see much of a difference, they both do what I ask.

But man, people are really avid about it being an awful model.

View on HN

People can be and often are wrong.

You'd notice how good Opus is in Claude Code. IMHO CC is the secret sauce

> IMHO CC is the secret sauce

Cant smart people just reverse engineer CC and figure out what is the secret sauce atleast for CC App?

Opus is just as good in pi.dev, Amp, or OpenCode. CC is an increasingly bug ridden slopfest.

I feel like a lot of this is just Googles tooling - if you're using Antigravity/Gemini CLI and then use Claude Code it feels like a huge difference. I can say from experience though (using Cline + OpenCode) that they are really close.

The harness is just much better on the Anthropic side.

I personally found Gemini 3.0 to step on my toes in Agentic coding. I tried it around 10 or so times but it quickly became apparent that it was somehow coming to its own conclusions about what needs to be done instead of following instructions.

Like files I didn't mention being edited and read and stuff of that nature. Sometimes this is cute in fixing typos in docs but when its changing things where it clearly doesn't even understand the intentionality behind something it's annoying.

Gemini 3.1 is clearly much better when trying it today. It stayed focused and found its way around without getting distracted.

So strange. I switched from claude few months ago to gemini3 and didn’t look back. Speed is big one, code quality just vastly better, all while far cheaper. I do need to try latest claude models tho.

The only cases where I've had gemini step on my toes like that is when a) I realized my instructions were unclear or missing something b) my assumptions/instructions were flawed about how/why something needed to be done.

Instruction following has improved a lot since a few years ago but let's not pretend these things are perfect mate.

There's a certain capacity of instructions, albiet its quite high, at which point you will find them skipping points and drifting. It doesn't have to be ambiguity in instructions.

I've found in everyday chat use with Gemini that it confuses things _it_ says for things I've said, which is normally fine for my purposes but I imagine would lead to the scenario you're describing in coding sessions.

All perceptions are very personal and anecdotal. Here's mine: I tried to rebuild a website from Hugo to Astro. Gemini 3.0 was mediocre and in the end just failed and was unable to complete the task. Sonnet did almost well. I had to flush the context once most of the job was finished, for atomic git commits and deployment scripts.

> But man, people are really avid about it being an awful model.

If you told people Gemini 3.1 was Claude 4.7, they'd be going nuts singing its praises.

Outside of code, Gemini is really really good.

It's so weird. I actually prefer the web version for generic questions like "how would I do X in git" or something, and it'll answer it well. Gemini CLI will immediately try to run git log on the entire graph, grep every single file in the repo, like just answer the question. I actually put in gemini.md to just answer first without running other commands unless explicitly requested and it's been a lot better

Thanks for this suggestion, it's actually been my experience too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com