3 ms·

> couldn’t be different than how Claude Code was received by software devs. It’s simply useless for designers, their workflow is very different from software de

> couldn’t be different than how Claude Code was received by software devs. It’s simply useless for designers, their workflow is very different from software devs. You can’t “oh let Claude Design come up with a quick logo for this” in the same way that Claude Code was able to quickly solve small annoyances for devs. Haha, that's exactly how cc was received initially. It's just autocomplete. It's useless. It can't even x. I tried to y and it gave me z. Over and over all over the internet this was the reaction. Then the bargaining began. Oh, it will maybe speed up some simple things. Like autocomplete on steroids. Maaaybe do some junior tasks once in a while. And so on...

deaux 6mo ago
> Haha, that's exactly how cc was received initially. Haha, maybe by you. By many on HN, but HN is a bubble of its own. By plenty of others it was received very differently. Many of us had been doing agentic coding for more than a year already when Claude Code was released, because we found it valuable. We will see if such groups of professional designers also form for Claude Design or other such tools.
troupo 6mo ago
It's still an autocomplete on steroids (that's what LLMs are). It still produces subpar code, with horrendous data access patterns, endless duplication of fucntionality etc. You still need a human in the loop to fix all the mistakes (unless you're Garry Tan or Steve Yegge who assume that quality is when you push hundreds of thousands of LoC per day). Same here. Oh, and Claude Code is significantly worse at generating design code than almost any other type of code.
- coldtea 6mo ago
  >It still produces subpar code, with horrendous data access patterns, endless duplication of fucntionality etc Not really. 2024 called.
  - troupo 6mo ago
    Just because you don't look at the code, doesn't mean it doesn't produce subpar code constantly. Opus 4.7, high effort. Literally 30 minutes ago. There's a `const UNMATCHED_MARKER = "<hardcoded value>"` that we want to remove from a file. Behold (the first version was a full on AST walk for absolutely no reason whatsoever, by the way): function restoreUnmatchedSelectors(cssPath) { const cssContent = readFileSync(cssPath, "utf-8"); const marker = UNMATCHED_MARKER + " "; const count = (cssContent.match(new RegExp(escapeRegExp(marker), "g")) || []).length; if (count > 0) { writeFileSync(cssPath, cssContent.replaceAll(marker, "")); return count; } } function escapeRegExp(s) { return s.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, "\\$&"); } Don't get me started on all the code duplications, utility functions written from scratch in every module that needs them, reading full database just to count number of records...
    - coldtea 6mo ago
      You're doing something very wrong. Consistently get a simple sed or similar oneliner for the above, not just on Claude Opus 4.7, across several LLMs. Maybe if you had a little more faith, you'd get better results :)
      - troupo 6mo ago
        > Consistently get a simple sed or similar oneliner Ah yes. A sed one-liner in a Javascript code > Maybe if you had a little more faith Ah yes, all I have to do as an engineer, is to ... checks notes ... have faith
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
dilawar 6mo ago
Fair point but unlike code, design (webpage), audio, video are seen by consumers. If Sora (AI video) didn't fly, how'd AI web-design fly? It is pretty good for internal apps and dashboards or small hobby pages and websites where being generic look and feel doesn't matter much.
- coldtea 6mo ago
  >how'd AI web-design fly? Most web design is already crap to begin with, so AI web-design will fit right in. Plus compared to the totally open-ended video generation, web desisn is mostly samey (follows a few trends and conventions), way more restricted, and doesn't include difficult-to-recreate (due to uncanny valley effect) humans in it.
codazoda 6mo ago
Seems like The Innovators Dilemma playing out.
tomhallett 6mo ago
Agreed - For the last 20 years or so, designers at basecamp.com do all of their frontend design directly in rails/html/css and then have the developers "re-implement it". The upside of this approach is designs which really work in the browser and they found it to be faster. The downside of this approach is that it's harder to find designers who have both of those skills, but that was an acceptable tradeoff for them because they are a smaller run company. To me, it seems obvious that AI will attack this from both directions - upskilling developers to make more design changes AND upskilling designers to make more design iterations and more changes to the codebase -- the design artifact is "new react components" (which can be re-implemented or not) instead of a figma design.

deaux 6mo ago

> Haha, that's exactly how cc was received initially. Haha, maybe by you. By many on HN, but HN is a bubble of its own. By plenty of others it was received very differently. Many of us had been doing agentic coding for more than a year already when Claude Code was released, because we found it valuable. We will see if such groups of professional designers also form for Claude Design or other such tools.

troupo 6mo ago

It's still an autocomplete on steroids (that's what LLMs are). It still produces subpar code, with horrendous data access patterns, endless duplication of fucntionality etc. You still need a human in the loop to fix all the mistakes (unless you're Garry Tan or Steve Yegge who assume that quality is when you push hundreds of thousands of LoC per day). Same here. Oh, and Claude Code is significantly worse at generating design code than almost any other type of code.

coldtea 6mo ago
>It still produces subpar code, with horrendous data access patterns, endless duplication of fucntionality etc Not really. 2024 called.
- troupo 6mo ago
  Just because you don't look at the code, doesn't mean it doesn't produce subpar code constantly. Opus 4.7, high effort. Literally 30 minutes ago. There's a `const UNMATCHED_MARKER = "<hardcoded value>"` that we want to remove from a file. Behold (the first version was a full on AST walk for absolutely no reason whatsoever, by the way): function restoreUnmatchedSelectors(cssPath) { const cssContent = readFileSync(cssPath, "utf-8"); const marker = UNMATCHED_MARKER + " "; const count = (cssContent.match(new RegExp(escapeRegExp(marker), "g")) || []).length; if (count > 0) { writeFileSync(cssPath, cssContent.replaceAll(marker, "")); return count; } } function escapeRegExp(s) { return s.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, "\\$&"); } Don't get me started on all the code duplications, utility functions written from scratch in every module that needs them, reading full database just to count number of records...
  - coldtea 6mo ago
    You're doing something very wrong. Consistently get a simple sed or similar oneliner for the above, not just on Claude Opus 4.7, across several LLMs. Maybe if you had a little more faith, you'd get better results :)
    - troupo 6mo ago
      > Consistently get a simple sed or similar oneliner Ah yes. A sed one-liner in a Javascript code > Maybe if you had a little more faith Ah yes, all I have to do as an engineer, is to ... checks notes ... have faith
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]

dilawar 6mo ago

Fair point but unlike code, design (webpage), audio, video are seen by consumers. If Sora (AI video) didn't fly, how'd AI web-design fly? It is pretty good for internal apps and dashboards or small hobby pages and websites where being generic look and feel doesn't matter much.

coldtea 6mo ago
>how'd AI web-design fly? Most web design is already crap to begin with, so AI web-design will fit right in. Plus compared to the totally open-ended video generation, web desisn is mostly samey (follows a few trends and conventions), way more restricted, and doesn't include difficult-to-recreate (due to uncanny valley effect) humans in it.

codazoda 6mo ago

Seems like The Innovators Dilemma playing out.

tomhallett 6mo ago

Agreed - For the last 20 years or so, designers at basecamp.com do all of their frontend design directly in rails/html/css and then have the developers "re-implement it". The upside of this approach is designs which really work in the browser and they found it to be faster. The downside of this approach is that it's harder to find designers who have both of those skills, but that was an acceptable tradeoff for them because they are a smaller run company. To me, it seems obvious that AI will attack this from both directions - upskilling developers to make more design changes AND upskilling designers to make more design iterations and more changes to the codebase -- the design artifact is "new react components" (which can be re-implemented or not) instead of a figma design.