← Back to context

Comment by apsurd

8 hours ago

The product and UX of the tool is distinct from the raw ability of the tool.

Claude code has great UX.

  • It is hands down the most user hostile UX I put up with. The fact that I put up with it speaks volumes about the value proposition that the underlying models bring to the table.

    I’m in the process of dumping codex for more open harnesses that don’t add problematic new features every week. Because Anthropic insists that I have to use their harness with the subscription, eventually I’m either going to wrap `claude -p` to get away from the crappy TUI or else I’ll just unsubscribe and use other models. Their bad UX has alienated me as a paying customer.

    • Can you give me examples of things you don't like? Because I unironically admire how they improve UX. It's subtle, minimal, yet insanely useful.

      Listed a few in my other comment

      2 replies →

  • No, the tooling I make has better UX very quickly. It is built for their financial goals, not for the end user.

    • this 1000x. a lot of details in context compaction, editing, reverting ux, etc are all really centered on keeping the load and cost of subscription users as small as possible. its no always that nor is it necessarily correct, but its a huge driver of how those subscriptions and first party apps are designed

    • I know this is an unpopular opinion, but it's actually good. - pasting lots of content became [35 lines] and they added a tiny notification to show it as-is if you paste again - interactive questions layout - paste images - the recap - auto-updating session titles

      And so many more. I tried codex and it was lacking in many UX aspects. Remember we got from a text-paragraph-only terminal to this at breakneck speed.

      3 replies →

  • agreed. the thing i reach for most is its ability to coordinate my agent graph, e.g. seeing what sub-agents are doing, messaging agents, adding new capacity. claude code really is a delight to use here

  • Claude Code is better than Codex UX. But as per the sibling response it's more a developer tool made by developers for developers. It does have a lot of niceties. Codex/openai on the other hand is more clearly trying to reach mass-market and it's a UX shit show because of it. Consumer UX is its own thing. So the original point is that raw ability of the tool doesn't magically solve ergonomics.

    • Won't disagree with you because I haven't used codex/OAI a lot - but Claude's non CLI UX is great too.

      Eg - I asked for a recipe and it says leave x for y time - there's actually deeplinks that link to your clock timer with the time preset! And to change quantities, there's input boxes in the response that update all quantities accordingly.

      Many such cases of use-case specific UX