3 ms·

Sounds like a web developer defined the solution a year before they knew what the problem was.

• jama211 8mo ago
  Nah. It’s just web development languages are a better fit for agentic coding presently. They weighed the pros and cons, they’re not stupid.
  • shimman 8mo ago
    Of course they can be stupid, hubris is a real thing and humans fail all the time.
    • jama211 8mo ago
      But not in our criticism of them, no it cannot be us who are the stupid ones
  • barnabee 8mo ago
    I’ve had good success with Claude building snappy TUIs in Rust with Ratatui. It’s not obvious to me that there’d be any benefit of using TypeScript and React instead, especially none that makes up for the huge downsides compared to Rust in a terminal environment. Seems to me the problem is more likely the skills of the engineers, not Claude’s capabilities.
    • jama211 8mo ago
      I’m sure you know better than them
      • ozozozd 8mo ago
        We would all be enlightened if you grounded this blind belief of yours and told us why these design decisions make sense, rather than appealing to authority or power or whatever this is…
        • jama211 8mo ago
          lol burden of proof is on you buddy, you’re the one claiming their approach is bad.
  • int_19h 8mo ago
    It's a popular myth, but not really true anymore with the latest and greatest. I'm currently using both Claude and Codex to work on a Haskell codebase, and it works wonderfully. More so than JS actually, since the type system provides extensive guardrails (you can get types with TS, but it's not sound, and it's very easy to write code that violates type constraints at runtime without even deliberately trying to do so).