3 comments
There are multiple levels to the irrelevance of your reply.
The irony!
- I agree that trying to hamfist a poorly-engineered game-like rendering engine into Claude Code was not wise - hence my agreement in my initial post that "Claude Code is seemingly currently not very well-engineered".
- All of the stuff unrelated to rendering/display is the complicated stuff I was referring to. It's actually not easy to get an agentic harness (even one with, say, the simplest TUI imaginable) to work as well as Claude Code and Codex do.
- I included "necessarily has to be" to separate the two - it does not necessarily need to have a weird buggy rendering engine thing, it does necessarily need to have lots of careful agentic massaging.
- I do not understand how the implication "writing a game engine is easier than writing Claude Code" could have been drawn from my reply.
- All of the stuff unrelated to rendering/display is the complicated stuff I was referring to. It's actually not easy to get an agentic harness (even one with, say, the simplest TUI imaginable) to work as well as Claude Code and Codex do.
- I included "necessarily has to be" to separate the two - it does not necessarily need to have a weird buggy rendering engine thing, it does necessarily need to have lots of careful agentic massaging.
- I do not understand how the implication "writing a game engine is easier than writing Claude Code" could have been drawn from my reply.
Last I heard Claude Code devs were trying to compare their app to a game engine or rendering system.
This was summarily ridiculed. Are you saying that writing a game engine is easier than writing Claude Code?