Is it using one of these models? https://openrouter.ai/models?q=amazon

Seems 4x costlier than my Aider+Openrouter. Since I'm less about vibes or huge refactoring, my (first and only) bill is <5 usd with Gemini. These models will halve that.

> Upgrade apps in a fraction of the time with the Amazon Q Developer Agent for code transformation (limit 4,000 lines of submitted code per month)

4k loc per month seems terribly low? Any request I make could easily go over that. I feel like I'm completely misunderstanding (their fault though) what they actually meant.

Edit: No I don't think I'm misunderstanding, if you want to go over this they direct you to a pay-per-request plan and you are not capped at $20 anymore

Compared to cline aider had no chance, the last time I tried it (4 month ago). Has it really changed? Always thought cline is superior because it focuses on sonnet with all its bells an whistles. While aider tries to be an universal ide coding agent which works well with all models.

When I try gemmini 2.5 pro exp with cline it does very well but often fails to use the tools provided by cline which makes it way less expensive while failing random basic tasks sonnet does in its sleep. I pay the extra to save the time.

Do not get me wrong. Maybe I am totally outdated with my opinion. It is hard to keep up these days.

Don't they train on your inputs if you use the free Ai studio api key?

If you get a hang of controlling costs, it's much cheaper. If you're exhausting the context window, I'm not surprised you're seeing high cost.

Be aware of the "cache".

Tell it to read specific files, never use /compact (that'll bust cache, if you need to, you're going back and forth too much or using too many files at once).

Never edit files manually during a session (that'll bust cache). THIS INCLUDES LINT.

Have a clear goal in mind and keep sessions to as few messages as possible.

Write / generate markdown files with needed documentation using claude.ai, and save those as files in the repo and tell it to read that file as part of a question.

I'm at about ~$0.5-0.75 for most "tasks" I give it. I'm not a super heavy user, but it definitely helps me (it's like having a super focused smart intern that makes dumb mistakes).

If i need to feed it a ton of docs etc. for some task, it'll be more in the few $, rather than < $1. But I really only do this to try some prototype with a library claude doesn't know about (or is outdated).

For hobby stuff, it adds up - totally.

For a company, massively worth it. Insanely cheap productivity boost (if developers are responsible / don't get lazy / don't misuse it).

I keep seeing this sentiment and it's wild to me.

Sure, it might cost a few dollars here and there. But what I've personally been getting from it, for that cost, is so far away from "expensive" it's laughable.

Not only does it do things I don't want to do, in a _super_ efficient manner. It does things I don't know how to do - contextually, within my own project, such that when it's done I _do_ know how to do it.

Like others have said - if you're exhausting the context window, the problem is you, not the tool.

Example, I have a project where I've been particularly lazy and there's a handful of models that are _huge_. I know better than to have Claude read those models into context - that would be stupid. Rather - I tell it specifically what I want to do within those models, give it specific method names and tell it not to read the whole file, rather search for and read the area around the method definition.

If you _do_ need it to work with very large files - they probably shouldn't be that large and you're likely better off refactoring those files (with Claude, of course) to abstract out where you can and reduce the line count. Or, if anything, literally just temporarily remove a bunch of code from the huge files that isn't relevant to the task so that when it reads it it doesn't have to pull all of that into context. (ie: Copy/paste the file into a backup location, delete a bunch of unrelated stuff in the working file, do your work with claude then 'merge' the changes to the backup file and copy it back)

If a few dollars here and there for getting tasks done is "too expensive" you're using it wrong. The amount of time I'm saving for those dollars is worth many times the cost and the number of times that I've gotten unsatisfactory results from that spending has been less than 5.

I see the same replies to these same complaints everywhere - people complaining about how it's too expensive or becomes useless with a full context. Those replies all state the same thing - if you're filling the context, you've already screwed it up. (And also, that's why it's so expensive)

I'll agree with sibling commenters - have claude build documentation within the project as you go. Try to keep tasks silo'd - get in, get the thing done, document it and get out. Start a new task. (This is dependent on context - if you have to load up the context to get the task done, you're incentivized to keep going rather than dump and reload with a new task/session, thus paying the context tax again - but you also are going to get less great results... so, lesson here... minimize context.)

100% of the time that I've gotten bad results/gone in circles/gotten hallucinations was when I loaded up the context or got lazy and didn't want to start new sessions after finishing a task and just kept moving into new tasks. If I even _see_ that little indicator on the bottom right about how much context is available before auto-compact I know I'm getting less-good functionality and I need to be careful about what I even trust it's saying.

It's not going to build your entire app in a single session/context window. Cut down your tasks into smaller pieces, be concise.

It's a skill problem. Not the tool.

This problem is real.

Claude Projects, chatgpt projects, Sourcegraph Cody context building, MCP file systems, all of these are black boxes of what I can only describe as lossy compression of context.

Each is incentivized to deliver ~”pretty good” results at the highest token compression possible.

The best way around this I’ve found is to just own the web clients by including structured, concatenation related files directly in chat contexts.

Self plug but super relevant: I built FileKitty specifically to aid this, which made HN front page and I’ve continued to improve:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40226976

If you can prepare your file system context yourself using any workflow quickly, and pair it with appropriate additional context such as run output, problem description etc, you can get excellent results and you can pound away at OpenAI or Anthropic subscription refining the prompt or updating the file context.

I have been finding myself spending more time putting together prompt complexity for big difficult problems, they would not make sense to solve in the IDE.

I believe this is the root of the problem for all agentic coding solutions. They are gimping the full context through fancy function calling and tool use to reduce the full context that is being sent through the API. Problem with this is you can never know what context is actually needed for the problem to be solved in the best way. The funny thing is, this type of behavior actually leads many people to believe these models are LESS capable then they actually are, because people don't realize how restricted these models are behind the scenes by the developers. Good news is, we are entering the era of large context windows and we will all see a huge performance increase in coding as a results of these advancement.

Regarding context reduction. This got me wondering. If I use my own API key, there is no way for the IDE or coplilot provider to benefit other than monthly sub. But if I am using their provided model with tokens from the monthly subscription, they are incentivized to charge me based on tokens I submit to them, but then optimize that and pass on a smaller request to the LLM and get more margin. Is that what you are referring to?

FWIW, Edit mode gives the impression of doing this, vs. originally only passing the context visible from the open window.

You can choose files to include and they don't appear to be truncated in any way. Though to be fair, I haven't checked the network traffic, but it appears to operate in this fashion from day to day use.

Thanks, most people don't understand this fine difference. Copilot does RAG (as all other subscription-based agents like Cursor) to save $$$, and results with RAG are significantly worse than having the complete context window for complex tasks. That's also the reason why Chatgpt or Claude basically lie to the users when they market their file upload functions by not telling the whole story.

Cline doesn’t do this - this is what makes it suitable for working with Gemini and its large context.

Is that why it’s so bad? I’ve been blown away by how bad it is. Never had a single successful edit.

The code completion is chefs kiss though.

You could use aider copy-paste with aistudio ui or any other web chat. You could use gemini-2.0-flash for the aider model that will apply the changes. But I understand your first point.

I also understand having build your own tool to fit your own workflow. And being able to easily mold it to what you need.

They call it a "fork" but it doesn't share any code. It's from scratch afaik

yes! It's great! I like it!

But it has one downside: It's not so good on unknown big complex code bases where you don't know how it's structured. I wished they (or somebody else) would add an AI or an automation to add files dynamically or in a smart way when you don't know the codebase structure (with the expense of burning more tokens).

I'm thinking Codex (have not checked it yet), Claude Code, Anon Kode and all the AI editors/plugins doing a better job there (and potentially burning more tokens).

But that's the only downside I can think of about aider.

I didn't like not seeing the reasoning of the models

Or, increasingly, how the company values your time. If Claude Code can make a $100K/year dev 10% more productive, it's worth it to the employer to pay anything under $1600/month for it (assuming fully loaded cost of the employee to the business is twice salary).

ok but in what way a terminal is a bettter UI than an IDE? I am trying all of them on a weekly basis and windsurf UX seems miles ahead/ more efficient than a terminal. that is also what OAI believes or else they wouldnt try to buy it

Are you still working 40 hours a week? If so, what's the difference?

You get the same results for cheaper by using a different tool (Windsurf's better imho).

How do you price this in? If you’re charging by the hour, paying out of pocket to reduce your hours seems self-defeating unless you raise your rates enough to cover both the costs and the lost hours. I can’t imagine too many clients would accept “I’m very expensive per hour because I’m fast, because I get AI to do most of it.”

> if it saves me enough hours

You're being paid to type? I want your job.

Is this for Claude Code?

and where are these export used? Ader?

One has the incentive to burn through as much tokens and the other has an incentive to use as little as possible

My choice conspiracy is resource allocation and playing favorites.

probably because cursor is betting on many paying people not using their tool to full extend. Like people paying on their gym memberships but not going to the gym.

Or they are burning VC money.

That code example uses the "VAR=VALUE program" syntax, which exports the variable only for that particular process, so it should work (https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V...)