GLM4.7 + CC is proving to be a competent tool, comparable to 4 Sonnet, and is particularly effective for projects involving both Python backend and TypeScript frontend. It successfully managed to integrate a new feature without any issues, such as the previously common problem of MCP calls getting stuck. Although there remains a significant performance gap between GLM4.7 + CC and the more advanced 4.5 Opus, the former is sufficient for regular tasks, making it a cost-effective choice at $100/month, supplemented by a $10 GitHub Copilot subscription for more complex challenges. This matters because it highlights the evolving capabilities and cost-effectiveness of AI tools in software development, allowing developers to choose solutions that best fit their needs and budgets.
The combination of GLM4.7 and CC seems to be a promising option for developers looking for a cost-effective solution for handling both backend and frontend tasks. The user’s experience suggests that this setup is comparable to the 4 Sonnet, which implies a level of performance that is quite satisfactory for routine coding tasks. The smooth handling of MCP calls is particularly noteworthy, as these calls were previously a sticking point, indicating an improvement in reliability and efficiency.
Despite the positive performance of GLM4.7 + CC, there remains a significant gap when compared to the 4.5 Opus. The 4.5 Opus is described as being on a “completely insane level,” suggesting that it offers superior capabilities for more complex or demanding tasks. This distinction is important for developers who may need to tackle challenging problems that require more advanced solutions. As such, maintaining a subscription to both GLM4.7 + CC and a higher-tier service like 4.5 Opus allows for flexibility and ensures that all bases are covered.
The pricing structure is another aspect worth considering. The combined cost of GLM4.7 and GitHub Copilot subscriptions is relatively low, especially when compared to the potential productivity gains they offer. For developers or teams working on projects that involve both backend and frontend components, this setup provides a cost-effective way to improve workflow without breaking the bank. The affordability of these tools makes them accessible to a wider range of users, from hobbyists to small businesses, who might otherwise be unable to justify the expense of more premium solutions.
Overall, the use of GLM4.7 + CC is a testament to the evolving landscape of coding tools and their ability to enhance productivity. By offering a balance between cost and functionality, this combination presents a viable option for developers who need reliable performance for everyday tasks. However, for those dealing with more complex issues, the investment in a higher-tier solution like the 4.5 Opus remains justified. This dual approach allows developers to optimize their resources and tackle a broad spectrum of challenges effectively. Understanding these distinctions and making informed choices about tool subscriptions can lead to significant improvements in both efficiency and output quality.
Read the original article here
Comments
3 responses to “GLM4.7 + CC: A Cost-Effective Coding Tool”
The post highlights the cost-effectiveness and practical utility of GLM4.7 + CC for Python and TypeScript projects. Considering the noted performance gap with 4.5 Opus, how do you find GLM4.7 + CC affects long-term productivity and project timelines in a typical development cycle?
The post suggests that while GLM4.7 + CC may not match the advanced capabilities of 4.5 Opus, it remains effective for regular tasks, which can positively affect long-term productivity by reducing costs. The integration of a $10 GitHub Copilot subscription aids in managing more complex challenges, potentially offsetting the performance gap and supporting steady project timelines. For more detailed insights, please refer to the original article: [link](https://www.tweakedgeek.com/posts/glm4-7-cc-a-cost-effective-coding-tool-2973.html).
The integration of a GitHub Copilot subscription indeed seems like a smart way to address more complex coding tasks, potentially balancing out the performance differences with 4.5 Opus. This combination could allow developers to maintain efficiency while keeping costs down, as suggested in the article. For more in-depth analysis, it’s best to refer directly to the original article.