I think it really depends on what people expect from the models and how they "code".
Sol in my eyes is powerful, but it over engineers so much, that its actually a liability. Where as Opus 5 is slightly under develops but you then can give it a small push for what is missing.
I rather have it under develop and i as the human in the loop, can correct/enhance it. Vs the models that adds so much, to the point that your going "dude, stop!". Remember, removing code for a LLM is way, WAY more difficult then adding it.
My main issue is with Sol is that its designed to over engineer without thinking why its doing something. Great that you security harden 1000s of lines of code, but ... nobody will ever get to that code. Its that lack of intelligence is where the model becomes a issue for me.
Its easier to have less code and then do security audits, with you approving what needs to be changed/hardend.
It may simply depend on the developers their mindset. Some folks just want the models to do everything for them, and performance or code bloat means nothing to them (forgetting that this bloat over time makes future LLM work more expensive).
Its funny how everybody has their own opinion for what model is better, when in reality its more about that model fits your own development style better.
Personally I'd rather it over-engineer than under-engineer and leave gaps in the implementation that I'm unaware of. Not only does it make life easier to work with the model this way, but over-engineering can be fixed later, as newer models are released, they will get better at cutting out the slop and refining the codebase. The only over-engineering I've really noticed is things like developing extra safeguards and extra tests, which is annoying but not a massive deal. Claude forgetting to implement edge cases I've specifically told it to cover is a big problem though.
Sol in my eyes is powerful, but it over engineers so much, that its actually a liability. Where as Opus 5 is slightly under develops but you then can give it a small push for what is missing.
I rather have it under develop and i as the human in the loop, can correct/enhance it. Vs the models that adds so much, to the point that your going "dude, stop!". Remember, removing code for a LLM is way, WAY more difficult then adding it.
My main issue is with Sol is that its designed to over engineer without thinking why its doing something. Great that you security harden 1000s of lines of code, but ... nobody will ever get to that code. Its that lack of intelligence is where the model becomes a issue for me.
Its easier to have less code and then do security audits, with you approving what needs to be changed/hardend.
It may simply depend on the developers their mindset. Some folks just want the models to do everything for them, and performance or code bloat means nothing to them (forgetting that this bloat over time makes future LLM work more expensive).
Its funny how everybody has their own opinion for what model is better, when in reality its more about that model fits your own development style better.