Why Adopt
Claude Code has fundamentally changed how I write software. It’s not autocomplete—it’s a thinking partner that understands the full context of what I’m building.
What Sets It Apart
- Long context window - Can hold entire codebases in context
- Reasoning ability - Explains trade-offs, not just generates code
- Follows instructions - Respects style guides and constraints
- Honest about limitations - Says “I don’t know” when appropriate
My Workflow
Every coding session starts with context:
I'm building JoyCork, a marketing attribution tool for wineries.
Tech stack: Rails 8, PostgreSQL, Hotwire, Tailwind.
Style: Service layer pattern, skinny controllers, no callbacks.
Then I describe what I’m building and iterate. Claude generates, I review, we refine.
Real Impact
My AI-assisted percentage across projects:
- JoyCork: 73%
- FlowLink: 81%
- This site: 89%
This doesn’t mean 73% of code is AI-written verbatim. It means 73% of code was developed in conversation with Claude—sometimes generation, sometimes rubber-ducking, sometimes review.
The Honest Limitations
- Not always current - Training cutoff means newer APIs might be wrong
- Can hallucinate - Always verify, especially for security-sensitive code
- Verbose tendency - Sometimes over-engineers simple solutions
- No runtime - Can’t actually run code to verify it works
Why Not Just Copilot?
Copilot is great for autocomplete. Claude is great for thinking.
I use both: Copilot for boilerplate, Claude for anything requiring architecture decisions or debugging complex issues.
The difference is like autocomplete vs. pair programming. Both valuable, different purposes.