3 ms·
I'm surprised you think Claude Code is good software. I find it so hard to use because it is fundamentally constrained as a TUI. It is buggy, clunky and slow. I
by simianwords 14d ago
I'm surprised you think Claude Code is good software. I find it so hard to use because it is fundamentally constrained as a TUI. It is buggy, clunky and slow. It is sooo slow.
One example of what is particularly bad with it: tool calls and progress. Codex UI does it so much better. The way in which CC waits for a task to complete etc is really poorly done compared to Codex.
Another thing that's missing: no way to continue a side chat in Claude Code - this is easy in Codex with /side and it is super usefu.
- simonw 14d agoClaude Code has /btw which I think is the equivalent of /side in Codex. I don't think Claude Code is perfect software, but I don't think fact that Codex has a slightly nicer implementation of certain patterns makes Claude Code bad software.
- simianwords 14d ago> Claude Code has /btw which I think is the equivalent of /side in Codex. it tries but /btw can't be invoked at any time. it is blocked until the reasoning is done. you also can't continue the chat with it you also can't have tool calls inside it
- hombre_fatal 14d agoHarnesses try to solve a wide range of complex, open-ended UX problems, so there isn't a perfect one. CC might be the best one I've used if I give each major UX aspect a rating 1-5 and then average them. For example, it has a decent subagent viewer. Meanwhile, Codex doesn't even have one, and its subagent tool call is so buggy that the parent agent sometimes doesn't even know why the child died. Being a TUI is very limiting, yes, though that limitation isn't the harness' fault.