4 ms·

The value in Claude Code is its harness. I've tried the desktop app and found it was absolutely terrible in comparison. Like, the very nature of it being a sepa

The value in Claude Code is its harness. I've tried the desktop app and found it was absolutely terrible in comparison. Like, the very nature of it being a separate codebase is already enough to completely throw off its performance compared to the CLI. Nuts.

deaux 7mo ago
> The value in Claude Code is its harness If this was the case then Anthropic would be in a very bad spot. It's not, which is why people got so mad about being forced to use it rather than better third party harnesses. Pi is better than CC as a harness in almost every respect.
- enochthered 7mo ago
  Anthropic limiting Claude subs to Claude code is what pushed me away in the end because I wanted to keep using Pi.
  - strel0k1 7mo ago
    Just sign up for an AWS account and use the Anthropic models through Bedrock which Pi can use.
    - adrianN 7mo ago
      Why use tricks to support a company that is hostile to your use case?
    - seunosewa 7mo ago
      API costs are really high compared to subs.
      - solenoid0937 7mo ago
        Then you aren't the target market.
    - deaux 7mo ago
      What advantage are you saying this has compared to just directly going through the Anthropic provider? They are the same price.
- bizzletk 7mo ago
  Can you enumerate why?
  - deaux 7mo ago
    - Claude Code has repeatedly had enormous token wastage bugs. Its agent interactions are also inefficient. These are the cause of many of the reports of "single prompt blew through 5-hour quota" even though it's a reasonable prompt. - It still lacks support for industry standards such as AGENTS.md - Extremely limited customization - Lots of bugs including often making it impossible to view pre-compaction messages inside Claude Code. - Obvious one: can't easily switch between Claude and non-Claude models - Resource usage More than anything, I haven't found a single thing that Pi does worse. All of it is just straight up better or the same.
Mashimo 7mo ago
I thought the desktop app used the cli app in the background?

deaux 7mo ago

> The value in Claude Code is its harness If this was the case then Anthropic would be in a very bad spot. It's not, which is why people got so mad about being forced to use it rather than better third party harnesses. Pi is better than CC as a harness in almost every respect.

enochthered 7mo ago
Anthropic limiting Claude subs to Claude code is what pushed me away in the end because I wanted to keep using Pi.
- strel0k1 7mo ago
  Just sign up for an AWS account and use the Anthropic models through Bedrock which Pi can use.
  - adrianN 7mo ago
    Why use tricks to support a company that is hostile to your use case?
  - seunosewa 7mo ago
    API costs are really high compared to subs.
    - solenoid0937 7mo ago
      Then you aren't the target market.
  - deaux 7mo ago
    What advantage are you saying this has compared to just directly going through the Anthropic provider? They are the same price.
bizzletk 7mo ago
Can you enumerate why?
- deaux 7mo ago
  - Claude Code has repeatedly had enormous token wastage bugs. Its agent interactions are also inefficient. These are the cause of many of the reports of "single prompt blew through 5-hour quota" even though it's a reasonable prompt. - It still lacks support for industry standards such as AGENTS.md - Extremely limited customization - Lots of bugs including often making it impossible to view pre-compaction messages inside Claude Code. - Obvious one: can't easily switch between Claude and non-Claude models - Resource usage More than anything, I haven't found a single thing that Pi does worse. All of it is just straight up better or the same.

Mashimo 7mo ago

I thought the desktop app used the cli app in the background?