I tried Amp and Claude desktop today to see what I'm missing

Key takeaways

Codex offers a simple, lightweight, and reliable local environment that seamlessly integrates with the user's workflow.
AMP and Claude currently have usability issues, such as complex setup processes, permission blockers, and less intuitive interfaces.
Features like webhook-triggered tasks, session inheritance, multi-repo management, and mobile control are highly valued for an efficient AI development process.
The hype around new AI tools requires critical evaluation; practicality and fit for specific workflows matter more than buzz.
For now, Codex remains the preferred tool due to its ease of use, session management, and cost (it’s free).

Summary

Initial Impressions and Testing of AMP and Claude

The host shares their experiences trying new AI tools, specifically AMP and Claude, after previously focusing on Codex. They attempted to onboard AMP, noting the mandatory login and account creation process, which felt cumbersome compared to the instant download experience of Codex. They highlight the differences in setup, usability, and the integration of these tools into their workflow. The host also tried to solve a pull request with AMP but encountered friction due to its opinionated setup and permission issues, especially in a remote environment. They compare this with Codex's seamless local operation, emphasizing reliability and simplicity.

Comparison of User Experience: AMP, Claude, and Codex

The host discusses the usability and functionality differences among AMP, Claude, and Codex. AMP's setup felt heavy and complex, with multiple connections, permissions, and unfamiliar terminologies like 'puck' and 'portals.' Claude lacked features like session inheritance for browser control and was less lightweight. Codex was praised for its lightweight interface, ease of initial setup, and the ability to tweak features incrementally. The host values local operation, easy Web browser integration within threads, and session persistence, which Codex offers but Claude does not.

Features and Functionality Preferences for AI Development Tools

The host emphasizes the importance of certain features like Webhook-triggered tasks, session management, and cross-repo interactions for an efficient AI-assisted development workflow. They appreciate tools that allow opening browser sessions within the app, annotating, and managing multiple repositories seamlessly. Comparison of mobile experiences reveals a need for a dedicated, user-friendly mobile app for remote control, which current options like AMP or Claude do not fully provide. Overall, Codex remains their preferred tool due to its simplicity, local control, and integrated workflow.

Concluding Thoughts and Recommendations

After testing AMP and Claude, the host concludes that Codex is currently the best option for their needs, especially given its cost-effectiveness (free) and features. They acknowledge the hype around new tools but highlight the importance of practicality and fit for their workflow. The host encourages listeners to try various tools but emphasizes the importance of understanding what each offers, especially in terms of automation, session management, and ease of use.