>It largely works and it's a massive business success. This is the classic engineer asking the 'why this technology?' to what amounts to a business question.

Your counter argument would be valid for a 2000 or a 2020 business decision about some tech stack.

But the whole point of their product is that it supposedly nullifies such "business" concerns around the use of technology, by making it cheap and fast to build whatever you like automatically.

That they wont, or worse, couldn't, speaks against that.

They succeeded in spite of their tech choices. Their model outshone it, which is an extremely rare thing to happen and not something they could've counted on. In any other timeline they could've/would've been hurt by their choices.

It's like "why did you go all in on buying scamcoin 3.0 as your investment strategy?" -- "I 5xed my money! End of story! It was fine!"

I have been working all day every day in Claude. I loathe their bug-ridden UI. Every release is a new crop of bugs, sometimes the old ones get fixed, usually not.

Any kind of scrolling back, copying text, using their menu system - basically anything that isn’t typing characters has had/still has unaddressed bugs.

OpenAI shipped a competitive model and I’m over in Codex now. I have yet to hit a bug.

If you’re holding the SOTA crown, people will put up with your buggy mess. As soon as that crown slips your pile of trash becomes a huge liability.

The criticism didn't appear to me to be that the solution didn't work, just that many of the working solutions we are selecting are dangerously overcomplicated due to shortsighted decisionmaking. The benefits of throwing redundant stacks of abstraction atop each other in terms of time to market are questionable, and obviously absent in every other metric.

This reply makes no sense in this context, though. Sure, it exploded in popularity based on whatever random tech choices were made. But now, when apparently they're deciding there's a problem there, why unleash $150k of tokens to rewrite a JS runtime wrapper from Zig to a million lines of rust, rather than simply rewrite Claude Code itself to rust?

This is the “eating yogurt with a hammer” argument. Yes, of course you can do that. Yes, the yogurt gets eaten. It’s just… you see someone eating yogurt with a hammer and it’s hard not to wonder wtf is going on.

Claude code still can’t handle scrolling history without corruption. It is embarrassingly broken.

Massive business success? I don't know the financials since they're not published, but google says the acquisition cost low hundreds of millions. So they could throw away the code and rewrite it.

> It largely works and it's a massive business success.

The engineer is suggesting that it could be done cheaper and maybe with better outcome. Ironically, this is a classic business case.

> “It largely works”

A ringing endorsement!

> It largely works and it's a massive business success.

You can make anything work when you have enough money to buy and radically change the entire runtime you’re relying on.

One must suspect that if they did not have insane amounts of money to burn, they could have tried other approaches to fixing the problems. Maybe engineering, perhaps.

This is a confusing comment because it’s the exact argument you would present against rewriting Bun to Zig, but you are arguing for one and against the other.

As an industry we are responsible for making our part good. So yes a business can succeed in spite of bad tech choices, but that doesn’t make it good tech.

Any choice would have made obscene money in this market. It doesn’t make it a good choice.

It doesn’t work, it performs horribly and is full of bugs. Serious people use open harnesses.

> It largely works and it's a massive business success.

I'd argue these tech companies got popular because they have good models, nothing else.

Even OpenAI took two years to fix basic chat scrolling.

For a company that solved coding and doesn't need any software engineers… why spend money to acquire a runtime rather than ask claude to rewrite it in assembly directly and be done with it?

Could it be that they aren't being entirely honest?

This is far less so in this case because this is thier hot path. Everything runs through it and tens of billions in revenue depends on it. It needs to be as fast and solid as possible

This is a useless post-hoc rationalization. "It worked out, so it doesn't matter". You're trying to galaxy brain yourself into ignoring the obvious conclusion.

The point is that if you were starting a new TUI LLM harness today, you would basically use CC's architectural decisions as a guide for what not to do.

So Claude isn't great for everything?!?

No, it's because they wanted a unified pipeline in claude code, claude app, and their website. All of them use more or less the same claude features (claude code has artifacts, claude website has "Ask User a Question" tool, etc.).

Much less fragmented compared to "write the app 3 times in 3 different languages".

I think it makes sense that when you've outlawed competition for many/most users of your product's matching service that you would cheap out on it if you were maximally extractive and took no pride in your work, sure.

But the "coding is mostly solved" narrative kinda doesn't match right? If good, correct, high-performance software is like, free now? Wouldn't you want it to be slick as hell, really reliable, all that? Even a little breakage costs a lot of money at that scale and pricing, it would be better than a wash if you put the magic code thing on the case.

"Claude. Do all employee work. Make no mistake. Notify in slack when revenue is double."

[dead]