Congratulations on the launch! Really intriguing product.
How well would it work for a company that has the kinds of artifacts that you mentioned, but that lacks the quality/precision/accuracy that Hyper might need?
I'm especially thinking about mature companies that don't sell software and that have made a lot of mistakes and memorialized inconsistencies.
Is Hyper just a bad fit for them? Or could there be a path toward refinement and correction that eliminates ambiguities, etc.? For companies like this, Hyper could provide the clarity that such a company lacks day-to-day.
For building web applications or a system that includes logic that needs to run on the web? TypeScript is mature enough, and it's top tier for domain modeling. As long as you stay disciplined, Claude Code will write excellent TypeScript for you, and you can run it pretty much anywhere.
The only reasons to hesitate, imo, are (A) you're worried that it won't perform as well as you need on your servers, or (B) you're scared of npm supply chain attacks.
Agreed -- it's a wonderful film, and deserves a special place right up there with Star Wars and Harryhausen for its practical effects.
While the article mentions Moebius, I think this level of praise still merits an extra Incal callout, even if it just serves as a recommendation to those who want more of this stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incal
> Claude Code and its ilk can turn "maybe one day" internal projects into live features after a single hour of work. You really, honestly, and truly are missing out if you're not looking for valuable things like that!
You're right, it's possible. But you might be both overestimating the ease of onboarding and underestimating the variety of tasks and constraints devs are responsible for.
I've seen Claude knock out trivial stuff with a sufficiently good spec. But I've also seen it utterly choke on a bad spec or a hard task. I think these outcomes are pretty broadly established. So is the expectation that the tech will get better. Waiting isn't unwise.
> If this tech is as amazing as you say it is, I'll be able to pick it up and become productive on a timescale of my choosing not yours.
Broadly speaking, I think this is a wise assessment. There are opportunities for productivity gains right now, but it I don't think it's a knockout for anyone using the tech, and I think that onboarding might be challenging for some people in the tech's current state.
It is safe to assume that the tech will continue to improve in both ways: productivity gains will increase, onboarding will get easier. I think it will also become easier to choose a particular suite of products to use too. Waiting is not a bad idea.
> On exception it exits dirtily and crashes, which is good enough for now
Silent failures and unexplained crashes are high on my list of things to avoid, but many teams just take them for granted in spite of the practical impact.
I think that a lot of orgs have a culture of "ship it and move on," accompanied by expectations like: QA will catch it, high turnover/lower-skill programmers commit stuff like this all the time anyway, or production code is expected to have some rough edges. I've been on teams like that, mostly in bigger orgs with high turnover and/or low engineering standards.
I'm wondering: why now, in early 2026? Why not last year? Why not in July? What changed? What does this teach us about Anthropic and what can we infer about their competition?
YMMV, of course. I set up our actions pipeline four years ago and basically never have to worry or even think about it. The UI isn't perfect, but it's good enough.
Our scenario: relatively simple monorepo, lots of docker, just enough bash, trunk-based dev strategy. It's great for that.
Last I knew, Rider was pretty much the only IDE available for a large codebase when you weren't on Windows. Much love for Ionide, but it was a serious struggle.
I think I agree with you. When I was part of a growing F# team a number of years ago, everyone we hired was an enthusiast who just loved coding in F# and wanted an opportunity to do it professionally. It turned out that this love, combined with the constraints of the language, led to a super-clean and legible code base. The quality was (in my estimation) outstanding, and I was sad to leave it.
For a great sci-fi treatment of the dangers of mirror life, see Fantastic Four 5-6 (2023) by Ryan North. Yes, that Ryan North, and no, it's not your "typical" comic book.
I am sure that some people will read this post and feel either encouraged or vindicated. A younger version of myself might have been one of them.
My guess is that the author is curious by nature, and driven toward trying new technology. The author likely enjoyed some success as the result of exploration. The important thing here is: it is not necessarily virtue or pragmatism that led the author to this (I think) contraversial opinion.
Some other things to consider:
- Trying to minimize TCO and risk is important; the more tools (especially free ones?) the more risk and potential cost
- Providing an easy training experience for newcomers is important; too many tools can be overwhelming during onboarding
- Being happy in your work is important; will the tools make you happy? will they make the people you work with and work for happy?