4 ms·
Claude Code creator said Claude wrote 100% of his code last month: https://xcancel.com/bcherny/status/2004897269674639461 https://xcancel.com/bcherny/status/200
by frays 9mo ago
Claude Code creator said Claude wrote 100% of his code last month: https://xcancel.com/bcherny/status/2004897269674639461 https://xcancel.com/bcherny/status/2004897269674639461
- midldei 9mo agoI read your comment as a joke, but in case if was a defense, or is taken as a defense by others, let me help you punch up your writing for you: "[Person who is financially incentivized to make unverifiable claims about the utility of the tool they helped build] said [tool] [did an unverified and unverifiable thing] last month"
- antonvs 9mo ago"Claude Code creator relied so heavily on Claude Code that he broke Claude Code"
- torben-friis 9mo ago>In the last thirty days, I landed 259 PRs -- 497 commits, 40k lines added, 38k lines removed. Is anyone with or without AI approaching anywhere near that speed of delivery? I don’t think my whole company matches that amount. It sounds super unreasonable, just doing a sanity check.
- vessenes 9mo agoCheck out Steve Yegge’s pace with beads and gas town - well in excess of that.
- drdrey 9mo ago...but is it good?
- cheschire 9mo agoNo, per Steve himself. https://steve-yegge.medium.com/welcome-to-gas-town-4f25ee16dd04 https://steve-yegge.medium.com/welcome-to-gas-town-4f25ee16d...
- no-name-here 9mo agoSpecifically: > It’s also 100% vibe coded. I’ve never seen the code, and I never care to, which might give you pause. ‘Course, I’ve never looked at Beads either, and it’s 225k lines of Go code that tens of thousands of people are using every day. I just created it in October. If that makes you uncomfortable, get out now.
- bschwarz 9mo agoWas it Steve Yegge who introduced "but is it good? [yes]"? I can't find the first instance of this.
- lelanthran 9mo agoYeah, but at that pace it is, for all practical purposes, unreviewable. Humans writing is slow, no doubt, but humans reading code ain't that much faster.
- groundzeros2015 9mo agoI can make a bot that touches each line of code and commits it, if you would like.
- deepjoy 9mo agoRecently came across a project on HN front page that was developed on Github with a public repo. https://github.com/steveyegge/gastown/graphs/contributors https://github.com/steveyegge/gastown/graphs/contributors 2000 commits over 20 days +497K/-360K lines I'm not affiliated with Claude or the project linked.
- AlexCoventry 9mo agoThe author has written an evangelical book about vibe coding. https://www.amazon.com/Vibe-Coding-Building-Production-Grade-Software/dp/1966280025 https://www.amazon.com/Vibe-Coding-Building-Production-Grade... He also has some other agent-coordination software. https://github.com/steveyegge/vc https://github.com/steveyegge/vc Don't know whether it's helpful, or what the difference is.
- AlexCoventry 9mo agoAnthropic must be loving this. > Gas Town is also expensive as hell. You won’t like Gas Town if you ever have to think, even for a moment, about where money comes from. I had to get my second Claude Code account, finally; they don’t let you siphon unlimited dollars from a single account, so you need multiple emails and siphons, it’s all very silly. My calculations show that now that Gas Town has finally achieved liftoff, I will need a third Claude Code account by the end of next week. It is a cash guzzler. https://steve-yegge.medium.com/welcome-to-gas-town-4f25ee16dd04 https://steve-yegge.medium.com/welcome-to-gas-town-4f25ee16d...
- mktemp-d 9mo ago40K - 38K means 2K lines of actual code. Which could mean that code was refactored and then built on top of. Or it could just mean that Claude had to correct itself multiple times over those 459 commits. Does correcting your mistakes from yesterday’s ChatGPT binge episode count as progress…maybe?
- lelanthran 9mo agoIf it doesn't revert the corrections, maybe it is progress? I can easily imagine constant churn in the code because it switches between five different implementations when run five times, foing back to the first one on the sixth time and repeating the process. I gotta ask, though, why exactly is that much code needed for what CC does? It's a specialised wrapper.
- fragmede 9mo agoHow many lines of code are they allowed to use for it, and why have we put you in charge of deciding how much code they're allowed to use? There's probably a bit more to it than just: #!/usr/bin/env bash while true; do printf "> " read -r USER_INPUT || exit 0 RESPONSE=$(curl -s https://api.openai.com/v1/chat/completions \ -H "Authorization: Bearer $OPENAI_API_KEY" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d "{ \"model\": \"gpt-5.2\", \"messages\": [ {\"role\": \"user\", \"content\": \"$USER_INPUT\"} ] }") echo "$RESPONSE" | jq -r '.choices[0].message.content' done
- lelanthran 9mo ago> How many lines of code are they allowed to use for it, and why have we put you in charge of deciding how much code they're allowed to use? That's an awfully presumptious tone to take :-) I'm not deciding "This is how many lines they are allowed", I'm trying to get an idea of exactly what sort of functionality that CC provides requires that sort of volume. I mean, it's a high-level language being used, it's pulling in a lot of dependencies, etc. It literally is glue code. Bearing in mind that it appears to be (at this point anyway) purely vibe-coded, I am wondering just how much of the code is dead weight - generated by the LLM and never removed.
- kybernetikos 9mo agoAI approaches can churn code more than a human would. Lines of code has always been a questionable metric of velocity, and AI makes that more true than ever.
- fzysingularity 9mo agoI'd love to see Claude Code remove more lines than it added TBH. There's a ton of cruft in code that humans are less inclined to remove because it just works, but imagine having LLM doing the clean up work instead of the generation work.
- torben-friis 9mo agoEven discounting lines of code: - get a feature request/bug - understand the problem - think on a solution - deliver the solution - test - submit to code review, including sufficient explanation, and merge when ready 260 PRs a month means the cycle above is happening once per hour, at constant speed, for 60 hours work weeks.
- coldtea 9mo agoOne can think of a lot of obvious improvements to a MVP product that don't requre much regarding "get a feature request/bug - understand the problem - think on a solution". You know the features you'd like to have in advance, or changes you want to make you can see as you build it. And a lot of the "deliver the solution - test - submit to code review, including sufficient explanation" can be handled by AI.
- bredren 9mo agoThe premise of the steps you've listed is flawed in two ways. This is more what agentic-assisted dev looks like: 1. Get a feature request / bug 2. Enrich the request / bug description with additional details 3. Send AI agents to handle request 4a. In some situations, manually QA results, possibly return to 2. 4b. Otherwise, agents will babysit the code through merge. The second is that the above steps are performed in parallel across X worktrees. So, the stats are based on the above steps proceeding a handful of times per hour--in some cases completely unassisted. --- With enough automation, the engineer is only dealing with steps 2 and 4a. You get notified when you are needed, so your attention can focus on finding the next todo or enriching a current todo as per step 2. --- Babysitting the code through merge means it handles review comments and CI failures automatically. --- I find communication / consensus with stakeholders, and retooling take the most time.
- uoaei 9mo agoYou're counting wheel revolutions, not miles travelled. Not an accurate proxy measurement unless you can verify the wheels are on the road for the entire duration.
- lukev 9mo agoRead that as "speed of lines of code", which is very VERY very different from "speed of delivery." Lines of code never correlated with quality or even progress. Now they do even less. I've been working a lot more with coding agents, but my convictions around the core principles of software development have not changed. Just the iteration speed of certain parts of the process.
- szundi 9mo ago[dead]
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- sefrost 9mo agoIs it possible for humans to review that amount of code? My understanding of the current state of AI in software engineering is that humans are allowed (and encouraged) to use LLMs to write code. BUT the person opening a PR must read and understand that code. And the code must be read and reviewed by other humans before being approved. I could easily generate that amount of code and make it write and pass tests. But I don't think I could have it reviewed by the rest of my team - while I am also taking part in reviewing code written by other people on my team at that pace. Perhaps they just aren't human reviewing the code? Then it is feasible to me. But it would go against all of the rules that I have personally encountered at my companies and that peers have told me they have at their companies.
- Hamuko 9mo ago>BUT the person opening a PR must read and understand that code. The AI evangelists at my work who say this the loudest are also the ones shipping the most "did anyone actually look at this code?" bugs.
- sefrost 9mo agoIt's very easy to not read the code, just like it's very easy to click "approve" on requests that the agent/LLM makes to run terminal commands.
- Bridged7756 9mo agoI'm appalled this isn't talked about more. Understanding code let alone code written by others is where the real complexity lies. I fail to see how more written code by some dumbass AI that gets things wrong half the time is going to make the job less draining to me. I can only conclude that half the devs of the world, or more, don't really do code reviews, or just rubber stamp crap.
- coldtea 9mo agoIf the code is like React, 40k it's just the addition of a few CRUD views
- Kerrick 9mo agoratatui_ruby % git remote -v origin https://git.sr.ht/~kerrick/ratatui_ruby (fetch) origin https://git.sr.ht/~kerrick/ratatui_ruby (push) ratatui_ruby % git checkout v0.8.0 HEAD is now at dd3407a chore: release v0.8.0 ratatui_ruby % git log --reverse --format="%ci" | head -1 | read first; \ echo "First Commit: $first\nHEAD Commit: $(git show -s --format='%ci' HEAD --)" First Commit: 2025-12-22 00:40:22 -0600 HEAD Commit: 2026-01-05 08:57:58 -0600 ratatui_ruby % git log --numstat --pretty=tformat: | \ awk '$1 != "-" { \ if ($3 ~ /\./) { ext=$3; sub(/.*\./, "", ext) } else { ext="(no-ext)" } \ if (ext ~ /^(txt|ansi|lock)$/) next; \ add[ext]+=$1; rem[ext]+=$2 \ } \ END { for (e in add) print e, add[e], rem[e] }' | \ sort -k2 -nr | \ awk 'BEGIN { \ print "---------------------------------------"; \ printf "%-12s %12s %12s\n", "EXT", "ADDED", "REMOVED"; \ print "---------------------------------------" \ } \ { \ sum_a += $2; sum_r += $3; \ printf "%-12s %12d %12d\n", $1, $2, $3 \ } \ END { \ print "---------------------------------------"; \ printf "%-12s %12d %12d\n", "SUM:", sum_a, sum_r; \ print "---------------------------------------" \ }' --------------------------------------- EXT ADDED REMOVED --------------------------------------- rb 51705 18913 md 20037 13167 rs 8576 3001 (no-ext) 4072 2157 rbs 2139 569 rake 1632 317 yml 1431 153 patch 894 894 erb 300 30 toml 118 39 gemspec 62 10 gitignore 27 4 css 22 0 yaml 18 2 ruby-version 1 1 png 0 0 gitkeep 0 0 --------------------------------------- SUM: 91034 39257 --------------------------------------- ratatui_ruby % cloc . 888 text files. 584 unique files. 341 files ignored. github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 2.06 T=0.26 s (2226.1 files/s, 209779.6 lines/s) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Language files blank comment code -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ruby 305 4792 10413 20458 Markdown 60 1989 256 4741 Rust 32 645 530 4400 Text 168 523 0 4358 YAML 8 316 17 961 ERB 3 20 4 246 Bourne Again Shell 2 24 90 150 TOML 5 16 10 53 CSS 1 3 8 11 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUM: 584 8328 11328 35378 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- rvz 9mo agoBack-peddling this tweet to 99% in 3, 2, 1.
- cube00 9mo agoNo chance, IPO is coming up, the only play is to double down hard now.
- danielbln 9mo agoBack in my day, honest to God humans wrote all code, and certainly never introduced any bugs.
- coldtea 9mo ago[deleted]