A lot of things that the author achieved with Claude Code is migrating or refactoring of code. To me, who started using Claude Code just two weeks ago, this seems to be one of the real strengths at the moment. We have a large business app that uses an abandoned component library and contains a lot of cruft. Migrating to another component library seemed next to impossible, but with Claude Code the whole process took me just about one week. It is making mistakes (non-matching tags for example), but with some human oversight we reached the first goal. Next goal is removing as much cruft as possible, so working on the app becomes possible or even fun again.
I remember when JetBrains made programming so much easier with their refactoring tools in IntelliJ IDEA. To me (with very limited AI experience) this seems to be a similar step, but bigger.
I tried out Claude for the first time today. I have a giant powershell script that has evolved over the years, doing a bunch of different stuff. I've been meaning to refactor it for a long time, but it's such a tangled mess that every time I try, I give up fairly quickly. GPT has not been able to split it into separate modules successfully. Today I tried Claude and it refactored it into a beautifully separated collections of modules in about 30 minutes. I am extremely impressed.
On the other hand though, automated refactoring like in IntelliJ can scale practically infinitely, are extremely low cost, and are gauranteed to never make any mistakes.
Not saying this is more useful per se, just saying that different approaches have their pros and cons.
I remember when JetBrains made programming so much easier with their refactoring tools in IntelliJ IDEA. To me (with very limited AI experience) this seems to be a similar step, but bigger.