Interesting - isn't Google Flash worse at coding than Sonnet 3.5? I subscribe to to Claude for $20/m, but even if the API were free, I'd still want to use the Claude interface for flexibility, artifacts and just understandability, which is why I don't use available coding assistants like Plandex or Aider.
What if you need to iterate on the functions it gives? Do you just start over a with a different prompt, or do you have the ability to do a refinement with Google Flash on existing functions?
That's why Gemini Flash might appear dumb in front of Sonnet. But who writes the dumb functions better which are guaranteed to work for long time in production? Gemini.
But Sonnet makes silly mistakes like, even when I feed it requirements.txt it still uses methods which either do not exist or used to exist but not anymore.
Gemini Flash isn't as creative.
So basically, we use Sonnet to do high level programming and Flash for low level (writing functions which are guaranteed to be correct and clean, no black magic)
Problem with sonnet is it's slow. Sometimes you'll be stuck in a loop where it suggests something, then removes it when it encounters errors, then it again suggests the vary same thing you tried before.
I am using Claude Soñnet via cursor.
>What if you need to iterate on the functions it gives?
I can do it via Aider and even modify the prompt it sends to Gemini Flash.
On Greenfield projects. I ask Claude Soñnet to write all the function and their signature with return value etc..
Then I've a script which sends these signature to Google Flash which writes all the functions for me.
All this happens in paraellel.
I've found if you limit the scope, Google Flash writes the best code and it's ultra fast and cheap.