"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

For some reason, idling Claude Code needs 100% of my CPU.

Developers can develop leaner applications, but they're usually not incentivized to.

Frankly, I love efficiency too, but I've hard to learn the hard way that what the market wants is features. Or at the very least, the executive team wants that.

I have iterm2 open right now with Claude in a long session and it's only using 500MB of memory.

Maybe that gigabyte is occupied by useful information: traces/memory?

So would you take these claims seriously if they came from OpenAI (since Codex is a pretty lean CLI app)?

If so, I think it would be in the spirit of HN to discuss the subject matter of the blogpost (increasingly autonomous coding towards the end goal of RSI) as if the blog post was indeed from OpenAI. OpenAI is, by all accounts, going through a very similar process anyways.

Well, they could very easily if they wanted. There is just no economic value in it.

A came here just to write: Pretty please let it churn for a few nights and redo Claude Code in Rust. Because the harness is very very good as are their models, but that node thing is a hog for no good reason at all.

They obviously don't care, aren't making any attempt whatsoever to do this, and 99% of users don't care either.

If you want to pollute your own priors with weird artificial litmus tests, it's a free country, but the artificial world-model you build in your head does not affect the real world around you.

Really? Let me explain how bigger companies work:

They have different teams for different departments with different type of people.

So the team or teams responsible for writing the terminal application are different people than the researchers doing the learning.

This can lead to dimentral quality aspects.