Discussion about this post

User's avatar
MC Dean's avatar

Hey Carl,

I'm glad you tried designpowers, that's awesome!

Thanks for this excellent question.

It is true that Claude Desktop gets you there for many tasks. It's powerful and has a great interface, but a few things can only happen in Terminal.

A few functional things: you can clone repos, run local code, chain tools together, pipe outputs into other commands, install and tun things that live on your machine. In the example of designpowers, the agents are on your machine, not sending everything through Anthropic's interface.

Philosophically...Claude desktop is still a costume. It makes decisions about what to show you or not, how to format things, what to surface and so on. It's beautifully designed I think, but it's still a translation layer. In terminal you see everything, the whole process and not just the output.

I really like Claude Desktop and I use it a lot. I'm aware that I'm working through an interface that was designed to feel smooth. Sometimes smooth inevitably means opaque.

Terminal literacy isn't really about the terminal. It's about understanding what's underneath any interface you're using. Once you see that, I think you can make better choices about when you want to use an interface and when you prefer not to do that.

Claude code (not the chat or co-work) lives in the terminal, they made it terminal-native by design. Their most powerful product is a CLi not a GUI app. This is because for serious agentic work, you can see the file system, watch commands execute, observe what's happening. Claude code is still a product layer on top of terminal.

Andrew Turnbull's avatar

I'm so glad you wrote this MC Dean. I felt the same thing when Claude Design came out. The demo was impressive, but using the tool in the browser felt limiting compared to the flexibility and capabilities of Claude Code in the terminal. It felt like the Fisher Price version of the thing.

6 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?