Incredibly cringe. Literally every single medium mode problem for a team is framed as a groundbreaking achievement. These people snort their own farts.
Please be respectful. I find it incredibly dismissive that you would use such language to describe such amazing individuals. They revolutionized the industry. They built a game engine to render text for cripes sake! So please get it right.
Nauseating on so many levels. What are we celebrating, even? Authors themselves say that Claude does their work, so what is their input? It's been barely a year in production for what can be best described as a 'buggy mess'.
To be fair, Pi only had to be useful. Claude Code had to solve the difficult unsolved problem of making a terminal print text, so naturally they built a small game engine [1]
My own experience: much less context bloat, and hidden system prompts. Can tune it to your own workflow, instead of dealing with whatever hidden system prompt Claude Code forces on you.
Claude itself (Opus) gave me the following conclusion:
> The article frames Claude Code as the latest step in a lineage from punch cards → ed → modern editors → AI agents. Multiple team members say they no longer write any code by hand. The overall tone is "we built the right primitive (read/edit/bash), bet on future model improvements, and it paid off."
Honestly I don't want to endure an awkward terminal interface and/or questionable design to just arrive at this conclusion.
Aider was also some of the most amazing prior art.
After switching from the early copilot (crazy to think they were first to market with this stuff?) it was an amazing TUI experience.
CC won because it offered token hungry devs a fixed price for almost infinite usage in the early days with stacks of VC cash to burn.
“The autonomous software engineering agent vision is more or less coming to fruition.”
Oddly enough no evidence of this is provided. I’ll admit it’s possible to have Claude write 100% of your code - however this is very distinct from autonomy. If I iterate on the code with Claude - telling it what to change, checking for errors and reporting them back to Claude, etc., I can build an app without “writing code” - but that is totally different from autonomy. And it’s not even clear how much of a time saver this really is if I know the language myself.
Perhaps the most telling part of this transcript is Tristan Hume, a prolific and talented programmer, and presumably an expert performance engineer, is repeatedly saying "this thing just doesn't work that well yet" or "it's just not there yet" and everyone else is kind of just fawning over it.
"It actually made something that worked. But when I tried using it, I found I didn’t like it. I need to wait for a Claude that has the taste ..."
Huff. They huff their own farts.
I think the fart snorting assertion can be proven. There is evidence.
[1] https://x.com/trq212/status/2014051501786931427
> The article frames Claude Code as the latest step in a lineage from punch cards → ed → modern editors → AI agents. Multiple team members say they no longer write any code by hand. The overall tone is "we built the right primitive (read/edit/bash), bet on future model improvements, and it paid off."
Honestly I don't want to endure an awkward terminal interface and/or questionable design to just arrive at this conclusion.
Interesting
Oddly enough no evidence of this is provided. I’ll admit it’s possible to have Claude write 100% of your code - however this is very distinct from autonomy. If I iterate on the code with Claude - telling it what to change, checking for errors and reporting them back to Claude, etc., I can build an app without “writing code” - but that is totally different from autonomy. And it’s not even clear how much of a time saver this really is if I know the language myself.
You are not being clever, you are annoying.
"It actually made something that worked. But when I tried using it, I found I didn’t like it. I need to wait for a Claude that has the taste ..."
Yes, I am familiar with that experience.