Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to code Claude Code in 200 lines of code

mihaileric.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 249 posts

Re: How to code Claude Code in 200 lines of code

#41

Post by rfw300 »

prodigycorp wrote: post #30
qsort wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously modern harnesses have better features but I wouldn't say it invalidates the mental model. Simpler agents aren't that far behind in performance if the underlying model is the same, including very minimal ones with basic tools. I'd say it's similar to how a "make your own relational DB" article might feature a basic B-tree with merge-joins. Yeah, obviously real engines have sophisticated planners, multiple jo…

You’re not wrong but I still think that the harness matters a lot when trying to accurately describe Claude Code. Here’s a reframing: If you asked people “what would you rather work with, today’s Claude Code harness with sonnet 3.7, or the 200 line agentic loop in the article with Opus 4.5, which would you choose?” I suspect many people would choose 3.7 with the harness. Moreover, that is true, then I’d say the artic…

Any person who would choose 3.7 with a fancy harness has a very poor memory about how dramatically the model capabilities have improved between then and now.

Re: How to code Claude Code in 200 lines of code

#42

Post by libraryofbabel »

KellyCriterion wrote: post #38
libraryofbabel wrote: post #35

It's a great point and everyone should know it: the core of a coding agent is really simple, it's a loop with tool calling. Having said that, I think if you're going to write an article like this and call it "The Emperor Has No Clothes: How to Code Claude Code in 200 Lines of Code", you should at least include a reference to Thorsten Ball's excellent article from wayyy back in April 2025 entitled "How to Build an Age…

can you show us the >>core of a coding agent which is, according to your words, >>really simple and would you mind sharing a URL so I could check it out then?

It's in TFA or in the https://ampcode.com/how-to-build-an-agent article I linked? Or is that not what you're looking for?

Re: How to code Claude Code in 200 lines of code

#45

Post by shpongled »

dfajgljsldkjag wrote: post #33
shpongled wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unclear why you think this is ChatGPT, doesn't read like it at all to me. Many people - myself included - use punctuation to emphasize and clarify.

That comment has tons of AI tells, not simply a few punctuation.

No, it doesn't. The "I'm an expert at AI detection" crowd likes to cite things like "It's not X, it's Y" and other expression patterns without stopping to think that perhaps LLMs regurgitate those patterns because they are frequently used in written speech.

I assign a <5% probability that GP comment was AI written. It's easy to tell, because AI writing has no soul.

Re: How to code Claude Code in 200 lines of code

#46

Post by prodigycorp »

rfw300 wrote: post #41
prodigycorp wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re not wrong but I still think that the harness matters a lot when trying to accurately describe Claude Code. Here’s a reframing: If you asked people “what would you rather work with, today’s Claude Code harness with sonnet 3.7, or the 200 line agentic loop in the article with Opus 4.5, which would you choose?” I suspect many people would choose 3.7 with the harness. Moreover, that is true, then I’d say the artic…

Any person who would choose 3.7 with a fancy harness has a very poor memory about how dramatically the model capabilities have improved between then and now.

I’d be very interested in the performance of 3.7 decked out with web search, context7, a full suite of skills, and code quality hooks against opus 4.5 with none of those. I suspect it’s closer than you think!

Re: How to code Claude Code in 200 lines of code

#47

Post by aszen »

prodigycorp wrote: post #30
qsort wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously modern harnesses have better features but I wouldn't say it invalidates the mental model. Simpler agents aren't that far behind in performance if the underlying model is the same, including very minimal ones with basic tools. I'd say it's similar to how a "make your own relational DB" article might feature a basic B-tree with merge-joins. Yeah, obviously real engines have sophisticated planners, multiple jo…

You’re not wrong but I still think that the harness matters a lot when trying to accurately describe Claude Code. Here’s a reframing: If you asked people “what would you rather work with, today’s Claude Code harness with sonnet 3.7, or the 200 line agentic loop in the article with Opus 4.5, which would you choose?” I suspect many people would choose 3.7 with the harness. Moreover, that is true, then I’d say the artic…

I don't think so, model improvements far outweigh any harness or tooling.

Look at https://github.com/SWE-agent/mini-swe-agent for proof

Post reply on HN