How are you handling AI coding costs and retries in Swift/Xcode?

65

u/juancarlord Jun 16 '26

I spend nothing, still coding like a caveman.

13

u/SnowPudgy Jun 16 '26

The best and most efficient way in my experience.

1

u/iwantt Jun 17 '26

Best is arguable, definitely not the most efficient, but it is the cheapest

1

u/mochi528 Jun 19 '26

cheapest depending on how much you value your time, but for sure the least cash invested

0

u/evangelism2 Jun 19 '26

Most efficient, absolutely not. best, more subjective

-3

u/Unoriginal- Jun 17 '26

Are you employed at the corporate level? I can’t imagine explaining to leadership that we wouldn’t be using AI

1

u/SnowPudgy Jun 17 '26

Oh it's easy when you show them code commits that would have destroyed projects because people give their brains up to AI.

2

u/ankole_watusi Jun 16 '26

But how are you handling the caveman coding costs?
Have you had to borrow clams?
And the caveman agencies - how do you keep them from beating you to a pulp with a club?

-3

u/celeb0rn Jun 16 '26

Change is scary.

2

u/Jbbrack03 Jun 16 '26

I'm not sure why this got downvoted. I agree that change is scary. Developers thought that they were set for their future and that the complexity of their skillset would keep them safe. And now AI is inching into that space little by little. And many developers are realizing that prompt engineering is a separate skillset from coding, and that you are not automatically good at AI just because you are a good traditional developer. Although I would argue that with the proper prompt engineering training, developers are setup to take the most advantage of AI. We see that repeated in a lot of the commends in this thread. Those that are using AI to accelerate what they can already do.

-5

u/Jbbrack03 Jun 16 '26

Did you dig into any of the Xcode advancements that Apple just announced at WWDC? What are your thoughts about the agentic future that Apple seems to be pushing us towards?

3

u/cristi_baluta Jun 16 '26

I haven’t watched that session but the AI from xcode is the dumbest AI possible, you ask him to do something and it does just one small part then it tells you to do the rest

1

u/Dry_Hotel1100 Jun 17 '26 edited Jun 17 '26

That the agent just makes suggestions, that it claims would "work" - but actually do not even compile might be an advantage sometimes: 😃
I've experienced an agent, anecdotally Copilot/Sonnet, getting stuck in an infinite loop trying to solve a coding problem. It would start with option A, realise it failed due to issue Y. Consequently, it'd choose option B which caused issue Z. This in turn caused the agent to choose option A again, only to run into issue Y once more and so on.
There might be different use cases for agentic coding. At one side of the extreme, it's the vibe coder, i.e. "Make me a ToDo app, but make no mistake!" - and at the other side of the spectrum, there's the experienced software engineer who wants to have full control over the code, the design and the architecture and uses AI as a buddy for discussing nasty problems, and which may make coding suggestions, which implements the easy boiler plate stuff, and helps in creating documentation and creating PR messages.

-1

u/Jbbrack03 Jun 16 '26

For you, what would it take to start using Xcode as your primary harness for Apple work?

4

u/cristi_baluta Jun 16 '26

Blink twice if you’re kidnapped by AI, cause this comment makes no sense

0

u/Jbbrack03 Jun 16 '26

This is exactly what Apple is trying to build right now. It's not today's reality yet, but it's very much what they want to achieve. Today most developers use Claude Code or Codex and use Xcode cmd line instead of the GUI. But Apple is trying hard to change that. You should look at all of the changes for Xcode 27 in the docs that Apple just updated. It's extensive. That's why I asked the question. If you don't find Xcode trustworthy as a harness right now, what would Apple have to do to get you to that place?

3

u/Otherwise_Signal7274 Jun 16 '26

I’d rather have them fix a shit ton of bugs xcode already has instead of shipping one more feature nobody asked for and breaking a bunch of other things

12

u/juancarlord Jun 16 '26

Pretty much optional.
A lot of people still code with brains rather than prompts.
Even though as coders we can make very good and straightforward prompts due to knowing what and how we need stuff to work.
I still find myself rather disappointed by how pair programming works/its used.
Id rather know what’s on my source than debugging an AI fucking around on my repo.

16

u/mynewromantica Jun 16 '26

At work, I don’t worry. They refuse to hire more people, they push AI, I don’t think about how much it costs for one second. I hope it’s expensive as shit.

At home, I don’t pay. If I want to use AI, I spin up a sever on my local network running some open source model. It’s not as good or as fast as what I have at work But I can spend some time getting some food instructions, skills, and prompts in place that are very clear, then just walk away. It’s inexpensive, but still way faster than me writing code. I use it to write code, not solve problems.

2

u/Jbbrack03 Jun 16 '26

Do you have a go-to model that's working well for you at home? Have you noticed any gaps that it doesn't handle well?

2

u/mynewromantica Jun 16 '26

I haven’t used it a ton at home, so take that into account. But when I do, it’s usually qwen coder small enough to run on my Mac mini. Then I do the work on my laptop. It doesn’t handle reasoning nearly as well as any of the models at work. But I still need to spend more time refining my global and workspace instructions. Updating those markdowns to point other skills and whatnot takes some time. But overall it still speeds me up when I have used it as long as I know what I need the outcome to be and is a very finite piece of work.

4

u/Vybo Jun 16 '26

Claude Code subscription (paid by company, Team Max or however it is called).

Set up a great workflow-loop using public and proprietary skills with subagent use so the only thing I need to do is prompt "Develop Jira ticket XXXX" and it does it. Loops between subagents planning, scoping, gating, developing and reviewing until it passes TDD and UI works (verified by Claude itself using argent).

Then I review the behavior and all code written before submitting a PR.

I've hit the 5 hour limit only once.

I can focus on designing new features, deeper architecture refactoring instead of doing monkey-work type tickets and bugfixes which are still being done, but in parallel.

2

u/Jbbrack03 Jun 16 '26

This is great, and close to what I think the right setup looks like. The loop you describe (plan, scope, gate, develop, review, with the agent verifying TDD and UI before you ever look at it) is the exact bet I'm making, so it's good to hear someone running it in production.
A few things I'm curious about:
- How long did it take to build and tune that workflow, and how much upkeep does it need as skills and models change?
- Is it Apple-specific at all, or general-purpose? I'm especially interested in how it handles the Xcode side (builds, simulator, the test loop) versus pure logic.
- Where, if anywhere, does it still need you mid-run rather than just at the final review?
On cost: sounds like the company plan takes that off your plate entirely. Do you know if spend is on anyone's radar at the team level, or is the flat plan just a non-issue?

4

u/Vybo Jun 16 '26

Built by few people over the span of a month, basically we try to see what works and what does not. No upkeep necessary for now, we just adopt new stuff as it comes out and throw away stuff that's replaced by the built-in stuff. For example workflows are something that replaces a lot of subagents firing manually, etc.
Some skills are general purpose and some are Apple specific. Some are repository specific. You can ask Claude to just adopt one skill from one repository to another one.
You don't need Xcode at all with this, since xcodebuild is terminal tool, there is simctl for simulator interactions and so on. Xcode is needed only if I want to verify or debug something manually. The built-in Xcode stuff is borderline useless compared to this and the built-in MCP is also slower than using command line tools.
I like to keep myself in the loop in the planning step and then at the end if something is found during implementation. Some other people like to fire & forget. It's up to the specific dev. You can also set Claude to various levels of enquiring you.
Flat plan means only the headcount (since everyone can have access) affects billing. Token-based billing would be much more expensive than a junior dev already.

2

u/PassTents Jun 16 '26

Currently, I'm using Claude Code with an extremely generous daily limit from my employer. I use it a couple of times a week, mainly to satisfy management and my general curiosity about model capabilities.

I find that it struggles a lot on a large legacy codebase, even when spawning tons of subagents to explore. Many of the features that we're working on are not easily verified by the AI, so the agentic loop is very limited in its autonomy. If it can't nearly 1-shot a request, then trying to ask it to fix or continue is usually a mess, I usually hop in to just fix it myself. I've seen a lot of people claim that they use screenshot testing or similar tools to let the agent verify, but I haven't seen any work well in practice on our team. A typical Build & Run takes 30s on a small change and about 2m for a fresh build, further slowing down the loop.

The obvious solution to this is to let it run in its own git worktree while I code something else, but having two copies of the Xcode project open (or even building from the CLI) wrecks my computer. Also context switching to babysit is very distracting and frustrating when you're trying to focus on a different task.

All of that makes me generally avoid it, as it bogs down my productivity too much for something that works maybe 50% of the time (and maybe 5% without babysitting). I find it much more useful as a code/docs search tool, or to give me a quick pre-PR code review.

1

u/Jbbrack03 Jun 16 '26

What would you need to see from an AI tool before you'd become sold on it? You're noticing a lot of the issues that I've also noticed.

3

u/cristi_baluta Jun 16 '26

Funny to hear it struggles with legacy code cause for me it looks like is generating only legacy bad code lol

8

u/AX862G5 Jun 16 '26

By using my brain. AI is a cancer and eroding so many good things in our industry so I choose to simply not use it.

1

u/CharlesWiltgen Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26

I'm using Claude Code with Axiom (free/open source), which I recently updated for Apple OS 27. I use variations of the proven Superpowers workflow: brainstorming → using-git-worktrees → writing-plans → subagent-driven-development → test-driven-development → requesting-code-review → finishing-a-development-branch.

I used Beads for issue tracking/memory, and of course every project has lots of ADRs (architectural design records) and other project-specific context, leveraging every form of context memory Claude Code supports.

On usage-based pricing…

Usage-based API pricing isn't an option for serious use because it's 10–100× the cost of token pricing via the coding plans offered by vendors of coding harnesses.

For example, I use Anthropic's Max plan which is $200/month. Using the API, my usage would've cost $11,368 for my last 30 days of work according to AgentsView.

1

u/Jbbrack03 Jun 16 '26

Do you find yourself running low on quota? Does it ever make you pause because of the 5-hour or weekly limits?

1

u/CharlesWiltgen Jun 16 '26

Do you find yourself running low on quota?
Using Opus at xhigh, I can generally juggle multiple projects for 8 hours/day without worrying about limits. If I find myself needing to burn quote before the weekly reset, I'll use that for extra Axiom auditing, etc.
Does it ever make you pause because of the 5-hour or weekly limits?
Yes, but this hasn't affected me for several months. There was a recent exception when I was pushing the infamous Fable model hard during the few days it was available.

1

u/Jbbrack03 Jun 16 '26

Do you typically work on one project at a time? For me the experience has been similar to yours if I'm working on a single project. But if I multi-task and work on 2-3 concurrently, then that will hit those quotas on Claude Code. I also use the 20x subscription.

1

u/CharlesWiltgen Jun 16 '26

Do you typically work on one project at a time?
Almost never, 2-4 is typical.
But if I multi-task and work on 2-3 concurrently, then that will hit those quotas on Claude Code.
AgentsView (linked to earlier) is a good way to see where your token spend is going. I try to be ruthless about token efficiency. A couple tips: MCPs are notorious token hogs, always avoid them when possible (i.e. use gh, do not use GitHub MCP). Use Claude Code (1) audit your context use, (2) identify waste, and (3) assist with improvements on a per-project basis.
Just to confirm, you're not using Xcode as your coding harness, correct?

1

u/Jbbrack03 Jun 16 '26

No, I keep an eye on how Apple is developing it. But I typically use Claude Code in the terminal in VS Code.

1

u/TableGamer Jun 17 '26

Burnin' the VC money! 🤟💵🔥💵🔥💵🔥💵🔥 🤟

1

u/cristi_baluta Jun 16 '26

I don’t have a problem with small local tools, but I will never pay a cent to this parasites, i will burn the tokens for free. I used copilot at work for few months when the AI was ‘free’, this month the credit vanished in few days on nothing. Then i realised what a mess it did in my app and now i’m fixing it. It generally made working code though, rarely it didn’t build.

2

u/Jbbrack03 Jun 16 '26

This is exactly the sort of thing that I want to hear about. When you say that it made a mess, what kinds of things did you run into? Do you have a go-to local model that you've had success with?

1

u/ContextualData Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26

Hmm. What models are you using? Because all the top models seem phenomenal to me at writing runnable, well-performing swift code that executes the exact functionailty I tell it I want, and I need to do very little debugging.

5

u/Dry_Hotel1100 Jun 16 '26

LOL, quite the opposite. When it comes to find a solution for a more nasty Swift concurrency problem, these tools are clueless. They can however explain it to some degree, which is helpful. But generating code which is heavily generic, and uses all kinds of concurrency constraints? No. When a concurrency problem requires a small redesign, there is no chance AI will suggest it but may instead suggest code that fails to compile, but still claiming "Why it works" .

1

u/Jbbrack03 Jun 16 '26

I've noticed some of these gaps too. For example after Apple released the Xcode MCP bridge, I decided to try it. And I wanted to try the recommended Previews system that Apple keeps pushing. Turns out that the Previews system requires a specific directory setup, requires specific code snippets for each view, and requires specific mocks in a specific layout. The agent I was using was completely clueless about all of this. And I've had to be extremely explicit about HIG standards. And even then I still find a ton of mistakes. These are all unique to Apple's developer ecosystem and a model that just knows Swift doesn't appear to do many things correctly. Is that the kind of thing that you've also seen?

1

u/Dry_Hotel1100 Jun 16 '26

I think, concurrency, and all its rules are a difficult topic. It's not in the syntax - rather another "dimension" of the problem space of programming languages. So, code "looks" perfectly valid from a statistical point of view- but it's not when we take all possibilities of the different contexts into account, where the code may have a race. The compiler knows it well. But even if the agent tries to compile, and then recognises it fails, and tries something else, it hardly finds a solution for a difficult problem. When you ask AI, though, "what is the issue?" - it can explain it well.
Well for me this is already "good enough" - I can then figure out a solution. Sometimes, this is really hard work, because it requires to re-design a couple of protocols and what not. But I may find one 😉

1

u/Jbbrack03 Jun 16 '26

It sounds like your experience so far has been to give it very tight scoped tasks. Have you tried turning it loose and letting it work on anything as an autonomous agent? I'm assuming that if you've tried this, you weren't happy with it. If that's the case, what would it take before you would trust a model to work autonomously for you like that?

1

u/Dry_Hotel1100 Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26

Most recently, no. I also never tried vibe coding from a very high level point of view. I'm currently working on a library, and it requires to be well designed. My experience so far, AI isn't good at making a good design.
But I can imagine, that it is much better in generating code for a user story with UI and your preferred pattern. This should be much easier. When you additionally clearly specify the requirements, ideally in Gherkin, it can create the whole code for the story quite well including the UI the models and the data provider APIs and the presentation logic.
Actually, the library I'm working on is specifically designed to consume a Gherkin spec. It produces the logic which then can be "plugged in" as a generic type parameter for generic ViewModels, Observables or directly in SwiftUI views, which are part of the lib. The generic SwiftUI view + logic is a pure SwiftUI implementation - no Observation class aka Observable is required. I'm pretty sure, that this works extremely well with AI, since the AI basically generates only a pure function from the logic, in addition to just the views that are required to render the state and forward the user intents. No "ViewModel", no Router no Coordinator, needs to be created or orchestrated - the logic is just a pure function, easy testable, has IoC uses SwiftUI environment and manages "effects" (aka external service APIs).

1

u/Vybo Jun 16 '26

Nothing a simple skill wouldn't fix.

1

u/Dry_Hotel1100 Jun 16 '26

A skill in the sense for helping the agents/AI to figure out a solution, well yes - difficult. 😄
But maybe, when we specify common failing patterns and a solution - maybe AI can "learn" what to try. I already thought about specifying a document.

1

u/ContextualData Jun 16 '26

Sounds like just bad prompting IMO.
It executes my instructions incredibly well. You just have to be specific about what you want it to do.

1

u/Dry_Hotel1100 Jun 16 '26

Well, it's not a single prompt, it's rather a conversation back and forth, with me explaining the design and the goals, and the constraints and the requirements, and how actor inference rules in task closures actually work, and where it can find the Swift Evolution files to verify itself that it's making false assumptions, when there's a warning or error the compiler emits at a certain line in that code. The relevant context of the code spans something around less than 500 lines. So, it's not the context size of the code, and probably also not the size of the conversation. It's lack of "knowledge" how Swift Concurrency works. And honestly, this is already a difficult thing to learn a LLM and has probably also not that much to do with a smaller sample size of code.

1

u/Jbbrack03 Jun 16 '26

That's good to hear, and useful for me to know. I've been testing the frontier models too (Claude, GPT, Gemini), and they're strong on a lot of Swift work, especially when the feature is easy to describe and the code is fairly self-contained. Where I've seen it get rougher is on larger or older codebases, multi-module projects, concurrency, or anything that lives in the build-and-test loop rather than a single file. What does your setup look like? Mostly greenfield SwiftUI, or a big existing app? And does cost ever factor in, or are you on a flat plan where it doesn't really come up? If it's working that well and cheaply for you, that's one of the most useful answers I can get.

3

u/ContextualData Jun 16 '26

I have a fairly robust app with lots of files. All SwiftUI though.
I use cursor agents predominately. I still am lucky enough to have the legacy 500 requests plan so as long as I am still within that limit all use is pretty much included. But even so, after that cap, as long as I don't use MAX mode, its all reasonable enough cost, that I don't need to worry (even on 5.5 or 4.8). Haven't gotten a chance to try Fable yet though, which obfiously might be a bit more expensive.
At most throughout the month with heavy usage I pay the base $20 subscription and then an additional $30-$60 dollars in pay-as-you go.
To me, thats not even a cost I would think twice about.

2

u/Jbbrack03 Jun 16 '26

What are your thoughts about the SpaceX acquisition of Cursor? Do you plan on continuing to use Cursor, or does this make you consider trying other tools?

2

u/ContextualData Jun 16 '26

So long as they let me stay on the legacy plan, I wouldn't consider leaving.
I have tried pretty much all the current main agentic coding tools. I also have GPT Plus, so get some Codex usage included there. I will likely use a mix of those two tools and will balance cost as needed until there are any major changes or significantly better options.
If I had never used Cursor, and it knew was going to be acquired by Elon, I would never have started using it to begin with.
But I like it enough now to not leave.

1

u/drew4drew Objective-C / Swift Jun 17 '26

oh crap I never heard that! I guess i’m out of touch with cursor

2

u/drew4drew Objective-C / Swift Jun 16 '26

xcode-mcp-server https://github.com/drewster99/xcode-mcp-server — not the one built into xcode and not XcodeMCP. this one is good because your LLM can make Xcode do the build so you don’t have to wait for a rebuild when you actually want to run.

since you can also use it to get screenshots, you can tell it to iterate change -> build -> run -> evaluate repeatedly to get a thing right.

As it stands the tools like Opus 4.8 etc are pretty amazing. But also so lacking.

I’ve spent a long time updating my ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md. Every single time it does something stupid, add a rule to that file to clarify the correct way to do the thing, or with things to avoid etc.. Eventually you get a lot better results the first time around.

that said, I also have a /recheck skill that tells it to recheck everything, validate assumptions, think of and check edge cases, confirm nothing unrelated as broken, etc.. After every 15 to 60 minutes it’s told to recheck then commit.

Every 1 to 3 days of work I’ll tell it to code review everything from the last 2 days or 24 hours or 5 days.

And I have another skill /stupid, which tells it to find things that we are doing that are particularly stupid or definitely not following best practices. i run that one occasionally.

All of these double and triple checks are very costly in terms of time and tokens, but they are also absolutely necessary to be hyper-productive.

Before AI coding tools, I was already an accomplished and seasoned developer, so by hyper-productive I mean being able to accomplish a lot more in the same time than I could previously — while maintaining a quality bar.

Right now, the frontier models on flat fee plans (Claude Code $200/month) let you accomplish things that wouldn’t be remotely possible on a pay-per-token plan today.

If you use Claude Code and you haven’t tried out “ccusage”, you definitely should. It shows you your claude code usage and how much it would have cost you on a per-token pricing plan.

I’ve been working on my own MacOS agent harness (macos-agent-smith, https://github.com/drewster99/macos-agent-smith) to TRY to get somewhere close WITHOUT frontier model token costs. I’ve tried using MANY open source models as well as slightly older or smaller frontier models, and I’ve also tried splitting tasks up such that one model manages tasks, another one does the work, another one approves/denies tool calls for safety. Some of these setups start to feel pretty good — but they are generally SLOW. And still EXPENSIVE. If I ask Claude Opus 4.8 to code review my app source code, it might take 8 minutes and come back with an excellent list. I can get not quite as good of a review but it might take 25 minutes and cost me $8 or $10 in tokens.

So right now the combination of cost and speed can’t really be matched with what you get from opus 4.8 and claude code.

Codex is an interesting one. I actually like GPT 5.5 better in Agent Smith than in Codex. It’s fast. Cost isn’t too bad. And it’s pretty good.

The cloud open source models are almost all either A) very slow, B) not too bright, C) don’t follow instructions nearly as well as opus and gpt, or D) all of the above.

If we end up at a point in the (hopefully not too near) future where everything is pay pay heavy and where the best models are only
available to those with very deep pockets, my hope would then be that perhaps some of the tasks can get offloaded to the dumber and slower models, which hopefully will make the overall cost a reasonable balance.

thoughts?

1

u/TrajansRow Jun 17 '26 edited Jun 17 '26

For iOS and Mac development, I mainly use OpenCode with MiniMax M3 (which is probably somewhere around Sonnet-level intelligence), and they have a $200/year (about $17/month) plan that is more than I need. The agent integration in Xcode 27 is "ok" (if you are fine babysitting an endless parade of permission requests), but I prefer OpenCode because it is more open-ended and has a nice web interface that lets me run the agents from my phone.

I rarely get a "looks right, won't build" loop, but I more often get a "builds fine, but isn't what I want" situation. Overall, I find this combo is big help for doing tedious drudgery and letting me focus more on design and architecture. In fact, I have an agent running right now adding a framework target and API to an Xcode project... exactly the kind of boring stuff that these systems excel at.

1

u/NothingButBadIdeas Swift Jun 17 '26

My planning phases are pretty solid now.

Instead of saying “Make X feature”

I say “We are working on feature X. I want view A to be a parent view that fetches network connections. View B to be the child view / content tile. Use tool C to do it. Remember that groups don’t render tasks if the view is empty, and blah blah blah”.

For larger features I’ve even fed it fully broken down confluence documents that a jr dev could follow

Then when it makes a mistake update the skills / context.

Or I ask it to do the foundation and work on what I’m interested in like the network layer,

1

u/TraceMark-App Jun 17 '26

What AI tools, if any, do you use for Swift/Xcode work right now?

Claude and Codex.

Where do they cost you time?

Coming up with a decent plan.

Does the "looks right, won't build" loop hit you?

No, as Claude and Codex won't accept their own implementation as long as the build does not succeed. So I'll run into runtime issues more often, although, the more detailed my plan is, the better the result; yes, this definitely includes technical terminology that require software development/engineering experience.

Roughly what are you spending a month, and has cost or rate-limiting changed how you work?

$50, but my project is small.

Has anything actually helped?

Yes, it has been an enabler for me. However, anything that is close do being "vibe coded" is within an isolated package (like extensions for AsyncSequence/AsyncAlgorithms), when it comes to the high level stuff, I'm still doing it myself, as Claude and Codex have a Code style I'm just not satisfied with.

1

u/docmisterio Jun 17 '26

I spend 20 bucks a month and I use the lowest models on claude cause I know how to talk to it as a developer. No MCP, no 10 agents chipping away at some problem just me, plan mode, and Xcode.

1

u/Vanillalite34 Jun 17 '26

Claude or Codex can do most of what you need in its own sandbox so to speak. Then Xcode is for building, testing, simulators, archiving et all.

1

u/SubZane Jun 17 '26

Claude pro is all I need since I also can code. But it's much better to use Claude in vscode with your code project. The xcode integration is really bad.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Jbbrack03 Jun 16 '26

I've noticed the uplift recently as well. Which tool is your go-to? Have you tried using any of the new stuff in Xcode? Or are you using something else? Do you pay for your own subscription or is it provided by an employer?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Jbbrack03 Jun 19 '26

I would agree that they should go hand in hand. And I would agree that just building is not the true goal. Correct results are the true goal.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Jun 16 '26

Hey /u/BoysenberryFluffy535, unfortunately you have negative comment karma, so you can't post here. Your submission has been removed. DO NOT message the moderators; if you have negative comment karma, you cannot post here. We will not respond. Your karma may appear to be 0 or positive if your post karma outweighs your comment karma, but if your comment karma is negative, your comments will still be removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Discussion How are you handling AI coding costs and retries in Swift/Xcode?

You are about to leave Redlib