As a developer outside of that, I love the scratch the itch apps stuff mentioned in here. I have a vibe coded SwiftUI chess repertoire builder app that fits in that same sort of space that I'm currently working on, where I'd probably not have chosen to explore the idea if not for coding agents.
I agree with the article that the terminal is an odd shape which you're fighting against historical specs, etc. The key observation I have though is that the mismatch of terminal apps and libraries to deal with this are all fundamentally built around character cells and cursor movement plus various CSI/OSC/ASC/DEC/xterm/... protocols which are complex and have varying support and interact in weird ways.
To get a good terminal UX, I think the answer to this is probably to throw all that compatibility mess away and redesign a modern terminal protocol that bakes in accessibility, regions, scrolling, selection, proper keyboard, etc.
I know Mitchell Hashimoto has a bit of a different perspective on this, which seems like it's to define some more protocol stuff and continue to build up on things. I think that probably gets to 95% pretty well. But a 100% good is a full replacement.
Why not just… a GUI framework or layout that’s meant to be keyboard driven and information dense?
If you're only targeting macOS/Windows/Gnome/KDE then the solution is easy: just grab a GUI control set and go ham.
Then there's remote access: you can spawn an X11 app through X forwarding and have a terrible laggy experience on Linux, you can use RemoteApps on Windows to have a good remote experience (but almost no other platform), you can use VNC to have an awful cross-platform experience, or you can use a TUI and have all the graphs and interactivity you need over a responsive, low-bandwidth connection on any combination of client+server.
TUIs look bad everywhere, so that's strictly worse
> TUIs run on any OS with minor patches to support quirks
So, which one is it?
TUI that runs on any OS |----------------| TUI without any compatibility mess
So because TUIs look universally bad, they're better than cross-platform GUI?
qBittorrent looks great on KDE, and would look great on macOS too if they used native icons (I’ve made a theme for that but was too lazy to install it when I was switching laptops). No idea about Gnome and Windows, but probably alright as well.
So, Qt can get you a long way. But you should of course adapt your app to platform conventions and guidelines.
You can't stay engaged if the menus don't bleep and bloop at you and confetti rains down on every click? That's a personal problem. A minimal UI is not automatically a bad-looking UI.
good dx, cross platform, fast, not ugly.
pick i dunno 2 or 3.
tui's get to check 2 or 3 of these just like any other gui library. somehow there still isn't a silver bullet here.
now i personally don't build tuis but guake style dropdown simple command and i have some other thing someone made open immediately running in ghostty? hell yea. with that said yes there are some stupid tuis out there that are anything but simple.
Invent a gui client environment that is universal, works the same way everywhere, over any kind of channel, and is already implimented and supported everywhere, and utterly weightless in all dimensions (ram/cpu/network), and then you might be able to ask that question without it being incredibly ignorant.
Today the closest you might be able to say is web/electron, which is gross on all counts. If anything the closest is X11, which is not remotely close enough.
That's why not just...
I'd say http://localapps should give an overview of all web apps running locally, with links to them. Those links should follow a naming scheme where the hostname ends with `.local` or smth.
My approach: Add entries for my localhost apps to `/etc/hosts`, and set up nginx as a reverse proxy.
Now when I go to `http://myapp.local` in the browser, `/etc/hosts` tells it to go to `localhost:80`. The http server sitting there knows which port to send the request to. I also made a systemd service that starts nginx automatically.
Now I have meaningful URLs for local apps, and I don't have to remember which one is listening on which port.
At that point you're just inventing a new DOM variant and aren't fundamentally different from any other opinionated GUI framework. The value of the terminal for me is the minimalism. I absolutely despise all these new "features" that get added via protocols. I _want_ the boring grid composed entirely of extremely primitive character cells where WYSIWYG in terms of any underlying abstraction. The only innovation I welcome in this space are improvements to portability and speed.
My snarky response to the author's title would be that you can take your GUIs and all the janky flashing lights they entail and shove them up your ass.
Here's an example I just pulled out of my shell history:
c=3afba1a; reset; laptop "virtdev ssh liblinux -- git -C liblinux format-patch -1 ${c} --stdout" | tee /dev/tty | termux-clipboard-set
I didn't need to think to write this, I just wrote it right there in the terminal using the shell's line editor, just because I needed it, and it completely solved my problem. It's as easy as pressing up on keyboard now, and I can easily turn it into a script if needed. Nobody had to bend over backwards to add monstruous features to the apps to accomodate me. I knew what my computer needed to do, and I made it do it.
In my opinion we need more of this, not less. More unix and less iphones.
> CLIs have purposes for which they’re irreplaceable. Building a CLI is almost always a good idea. Building a TUI almost never is.
You're also arguing for CLIs which are absolutely great. But TUIs provide none of the composability of CLIs nor the malleability of GUIs
Another example from recent history, I just wanted a easy way to mount all connected drives, so whipped up:
lsblk -l | grep -i part | cut -d " " -f 1 | xargs -I{} sudo mount -m /dev/{} /mnt/{} # automount_all
Meanwhile, a shell alias/function just sits there, easy to see what it does, can control anything in your computer, GUI or not (one way or another), lets you build up your own "database" of tools that all compose together (again one way or another) and finally is easy to put under automated testing.
I’ve always appreciated the positive side of TUIs and appreciated less the positive side of GUIs. I didn’t grow up with a computer at all and in one of my first adult jobs I had to use a TUI at Papa John’s for punching in orders, it was 20x faster than anything I used after it at other restaurants that were GUI driven (keyboard speed wins for me, fit my brain perfectly). I think I learned it in 5 minutes. I was just a normy trying to pay bills.
I dunno why we gotta be insulting to people’s preferences, the article is genuinely bad about this.
A GUI can be keyboard-driven and as fast as a TUI. The sad truth is that the status quo for GUIs is absolutely terrible, and most were rushed out and not properly tested to check if they're really usable without a mouse.
And TUIs are only keyboard driven. So the choice for speed if you don't need graphics is always - TUI (or CLI).
Plenty of TUIs support mouse to various extents too. Claude Code is an obvious example (try the scroll wheel for example).
I agree with you that TUIs are keyboard driven first though - and so you can be certain it will work well.
I agree that I found the article to be poorly written. Mainly because it takes a long time to make its point. I didn't really need to see a million examples of the author's vibe coded slop before getting to the topic which the title suggested the article would be about.
Agreed. One would hope the article would go into detail of how to make a great GUI (including tips on how to make sure it’s easy to navigate with a keyboard).
EDIT
> CLIs have purposes for which they’re irreplaceable. Building a CLI is almost always a good idea. Building a TUI almost never is.
Oh, right. I can see that, but I go the other way: When I have a CLI, don't give me GUIs; give me files. Actually, just give me files and daemons. I'll do the rest, thank you!
On the Linux/BSD side, most toolkits are of not great quality, you'll inherit all sorts of subtle bugs and quirky behaviours. Most of the software that's of _great_ quality doesn't use the toolkit, but interfaces with the compositor directly. The effort for developing GUIs under such circumstances is dramatically higher than a TUI, and a TUI is usually "good enough".
I really would prefer GUIs for a lot of things. But when a TUI takes a few weeks to make, the equivalent GUI would take a few months to make.
Meanwhile a GUI's developer has to decide to grace me with the ability to even open more than one window. "A tabbed interface will be sufficient!" -- yay, I'll never be able to view two screens of info at the same time.
Pretty much all GUI frameworks I have worked with behave the same, and you have to actively create singleton behavior.
Then you have Mac OS which makes it hard two create multiple processes of a GUI app. Other OSs don't necessarily behave the same.
For a TUI to do the same, it wouldn’t just need to find and focus the window, but would need to trace it through the myriad ways that a TUI can be displayed. I may run a TUI inside a docker container, as part of a tmux session, over ssh. If a TUI somehow managed to focus the existing instance through those layers of wrapping, I would be very surprised, disgusted, and impressed.
So I think it’s that the end goal of “redirect user to existing instance” is infeasible, so nobody bothers to enforce a single instance, since the rest of the steps aren’t possible.
It's not true for AppKit, SwiftUI, GTK, Qt, WinUI, or Electron, and I'm not sure what's left.
vscode, electron app, no problem opening multiple windows. Geany, gtk app, no problem opening multiple windows.
Can you give an example where this doesn't work?
But the point is that the developer has to build the app in a way that lets you do this.
Once again, there is no default with the tools I listed. You decide on how you want windowing to work and then build it.
At this point, show me examples of needing a mutex to "block" a multi-window default.
Just like you can start vim several times you can start gvim several times and have a few windows. This is the default behavior, and if the developer wants to change this for some reason, they need to put in some effort.
Maybe macOS is special? I'm not familiar with this platform.
Even in SwiftUI which has the simplest way to support multiple windows with zero work, the developer has to use WindowGroup, and if they didn't then you don't get to open more than one window.
The merging behaviour is also in principle possible for TUIs, btw, it's just that nobody does it. But with something like tmux is would be easy to set up that all subsequent calls to your binary actually connect to the already open session launched by the first instance.
TUI apps are multi-instance by default since the user can invoke the program in different pty sessions. The developer would have to actively fight that.
GUI SDKs generally require the developer to pick a solution. And it's easier to default to the simpler solution where you have one instance, one data model, one window.
Whether things might change in the future isn't relevant because we're talking about how things are today, not speculating about the future. And the time to change one's opinion is when reality changes, not ahead of time based on how you think things hopefully will be.
But I don't think I've run into a TUI that I couldn't have multiple instances of.
There is an opencode plugin for this opencode-pty.
Terminals + browsers is all I want for most apps.
Native GTK/QT is really good, but I only want it for "system" things like a clipboard manager or file manager settings app and things like that.
Imagine if there were no terminal/pty system. Then what, I'd have to use Claude Desktop (doesn't support multiple windows) and Finder?
So no, it's not the only argument for TUIs.
Sometimes I can use `du` to check what uses so much space, but sometimes ncdu is better for me.
And the best part - I can use both when I ssh to another machine, using the same command line, without thought. While GUIs need added thought, to switch from CLI to GUI on the remote one would need to use a different interface, or have X11 forwarding on (which is also a good option) and x11 libs on the other side.
Or use some other connectivity. ssh is simple, works on most servers I have access to.
Since I wrote my own terminal multiplexer that puts terminals on infinite zoomable canvas [0] and I just can't get enough of putting weird stuff like asciiquarium, cmatrix or tty-clock all around (tried peaclock but it's slightly too fiddly for my taste). There are fun projects just to run in TUIs like astroterm or weathr, but I'd say that the space is still open to terminal toys.
The only problem I have with TUIs is that they're boring after a while but something that can be solved with often theme switching.
[0]: https://race-term.com (commercial)
Then why isn't it done more often? I suspect part of the reason is that most gui frameworks are not really designed for making dense economical interfaces.
> you probably don’t need a user interface on prod. You need a command line interface on prod that
I don't need one, but I often want one. Being able to run vim, htop, etc. on servers is quite useful. Also, it isn't just prod servers. It's also nice to run tuis on VMs and containers that don't have access to graphics.
> I’m not really building applications for other people to use. I’m building them for me. TUI affordances are an awfully big hit to take to get Linux users of programs I don’t even want to publish.
Ok. That's fine. But then why are you trying to convince other people not to make TUIs? If I make an app you find useful, wouldn't you prefer me to make a TUI you can run on your Mac to a linux-only GUI?
I'm currently trying to create a GUI version (immediate mode library) of a CLI tool of mine and it's mostly a shit show and three times the work of a data-in-data-out CLI tool. Good learning experience, though. I should note that I don't care whether the GUI version has a "native feel" or not (if you have the time to do so, be my guest), only whether it's functional and reasonably fast, since otherwise that's even more work for an open-source tool. Though, when I undoubtedly make the more interactive TUI version later on (ratatui just seems too nice not to try! :-)) it will probably bring a similar complexity development wise.
Then again I'm not into agentic coding at all so maybe the joke's on me. On the other hand, at the moment I need to learn about the data I'm processing, the GUI library/framework I use, and being able to help the people I work with troubleshoot the equipment that collects said data. I'd miss out on most of that if I coded by prompt. Perhaps I'll try later, perhaps not.
Keep making TUIs, or GUIs for that matter.
GUI apps are only platform independent if you(r framework) make them so.
It's a quite common illusion that TUI apps are "automatically" platform independent. Even knowing which terminal emulator intercepts which shortcuts and how they handle width change, control character, mouse events, images, etc and design around them is not a trivial task.
On the other hand, making platform independent GUI apps haven't been easier. Just use Electron. Yes, performance blahblah, but thousands of Electron apps work on millions of machines just fine.
I will just stop here. No hates for macs, but your typical cli/tui software devoper is concerned about making their software run on almost anything with an actual os. As soon as I see references to specific operating systems or platform specific libraries my bullshit meter goes off.
I was expecting an article about methology and tooling to develop guis, got an apple fan telling stories about ai use.
Let say someone, as windows or linux user, clicks on this article claiming he/she should stop "doing TUIs", what take away message should he get from it? "GUIs just looks nice but sucks you have no swiftui"? Personally, I was expecting a developer's angle on GUI programming.
>But remember: I’m not really building applications for other people to use. I’m building them for me.
What's the point then? What's the point of writing an entire argument proselytizing towards application developers and ending with saying you're only talking about applications you're writing for yourself?
Why? Because just look at the examples on that page.
Or for Go coders there's BubbleTea: https://github.com/charmbracelet/bubbletea
Why? Because TUI!
Please, don't. One of the main benefits of TUI is being able to freely copy text, I hate opening Textual application and being dropped into this canvas like state.
The one advantage that a terminal has, is that commands can be concise and scriptable. But that only really applies to CLI.
A TUI is just a poor man emulation of a GUI, without any advantages.
No they don't. Many components are SwiftUI only.
The same reason webui and js is so popular!
Apple deprecated carbon (which was a thing when gtk1 was around). I don't think you have an option for this on their ARM hardware.
QT1->N code has the same problem, the older libraries are not shipped on most modern linux.
I do absolutely understand if you're going to do static compiles, that can work around that problem, but that arguement nullifies everything, since you can run/write/execute anything in a turing complete system, if you complain you're just not dedicated enough.
y'all are slow learners if that's an issue for you, but React doing major breaking changes at least once a year is totally fine.
Once we have robust automated computer use, that becomes the verification loop, and this problem will almost surely get solved.
Please, make more TUIs and web apps, so they can live in my terminal or my browser.
So you can't even immediately switch to your app and don't see it in an OS-integrated list?
Once you get the key bindings for screen or tmux thoroughly memorized it's very easy.
I have a windows box that never shuts down and i remote into it and use it GUI mode to do everything you said but with a proper GUI interface. I also use the terminal but your feature (constantly up + resume + multi device) does not need TUIs to even work.
While a mouse can theoretically use all pixels of a screen, in practical terms a keyboard has a much larger input space than a mouse, and if I can keep both my hands on the keyboard, I can work a lot faster.
At least that's my experience as a (starting) greybeard.
And you present the division of this simple unification of modalities as a benefit, but don't explain why it ought be many.
So far it's all just preference.
I'm not going to deny that the terminal has a ramp, is a lifelong learning curve. But I personally find it much more earnest, much closer to what is really happening, with less intermediation, and the way that terminal conposes with other things is usually unbeatable. TUI for humans, jsonl event sourcing for machine-to-machine.
> drawing on a couple of decades of established UX conventions for how they are displayed
I tend to not just click random apps open. I tend to have done some research and found what options there are on my own. I tend to know what I'm looking for, by the time I'm going to run something. In terms of getting there, finding stuff: the best convention I know of is aptitude, and dselect before it. Both very fine very old tui systems, and clear cuts above any app or web store, imo, for its power, directness, clarity, intent, and script ability.
But with a worse UX?
As a devils advocate in response to all the comments claiming TUIs are fine, maybe consider TUIs mostly do not come with many of the advantages of using a terminal CLI app - you can't pipe data into them, out of them, spawn them and collect the output, etc like you can with the usual stuff you run in a terminal.
IOW, they are a reduced functionality of a GUI - resizing works poorly, scrolling works poorly, UI affordances are poor (sure, you can grey out a button, but drag-n-drop hardly ever works between your various terminal tabs, and the smallest UI element is a full character block, unlike a GUI where you can have indicators that are smaller than a character, mini-windows, etc), lack of widgets, etc.
The lightweight argument is not so good either - look at Claude Code, after all. If you want lightweight GUIs, you can do that too.
The only argument that stands is the ssh one, but if working via a remote connection, I'm not going to want a full functionality application anyway - why would I prefer a wordstar/wordperfect interface to a complex document over a GUI interface? For simple documents, sure, TUI all the way, but when I have multiple panes (outline, minimap, status bars, toolbars, etc), it performs poorly in a TUI.
TUIs are making a resurgence, sure, but only in the context of developers and development.
Terminals are great for CLI. CLI integrated into GUI/TUI is absolutely amazing, but 99% TUI apps do not work like that, they're just awkward crutches foreign to the terminal, so you get no upsides and all downsides. Examples of good CLI integration I regularly use: Kate, Zed, Dolphin, Total Commander, pi. Only one of them is TUI, and honestly it's much worse off with it, since it has to display a ton of formatted text and sometimes pictures. It's really inconvenient and just looks like cargo cult rather than a necessity.
Native UIs simply don't have the same flexibility.
Edit to add: I didn't bring my laptop; I'm working from Termux. Surprisingly effective! The code is all in a folder syncing with my phone via SyncThing, so I can try out the sites I'm working on directly on the phone.
My reaction to this is basically about the same as the fictional Ivan Chesnokov
(beware, crude language, profanity, etc)
But then a load of others will complain about electron apps.
Further you then have an os within an os. You need to remember to look in your bookmarks, not your start menu. And you're basically throwing away the window manager too.
I want to run web apps in my browser. I understand why Signal isn't a web app, and I'm willing to put up with that for security, but nobody else gets that excuse. Web apps belong in a browser tab.
I salute you, heros.
There are real advantages of TUIs: less CPU; sometimes I want to be using a personal TUI on a personal dev server quickly from a work laptop at lunchtime and an ssh + tmux + TUI is perfect; most modern TUI libraries are significantly less painful to work with than most modern web app frontend libraries; I can change the font size of my terminal easily if I need to, more easily than native (but not web app). But by far the biggest, is they just generally tend to be very fast and responsive compared to everything else.
While I get your point, a lot of vibe-coded agent TUIs (Claude Code, GitHub Copilot CLI, …) aren't exactly fast, either.
The main thing I like is that TUIs are guaranteed to be navigable by keyboard. So many non-TUI apps don't include shortcuts at all for critical actions. It makes the first week of using the app more efficient and the entire rest of your life less so. Add on to that, I can probably run a TUI on my server. Or my cloud instance. And in my sandbox. Over SSH.
So: do make TUIs and bind their keys to Vi-like shortcuts as much as possible and I will use your app every time over a GUI app.
Pro tip for Mac users - install Karabiner and bind right-Alt + jklm to cursor movements. Immediate VIM navigation through the whole OS.
I don't disagree with you, but in ye old days you had guis that were navigable by keyboard.
And these were discoverable. That one program you use every day, you can spend the time to learn the short cuts. You can still get things done by clicking around though.
I suspect the underlying issue is one of limitations. Terminals are limited in what they can do. Guis and the web, you can do so much more, so people do.
I think another issue is touch screens. Guis and the web have moved to optimise for those. It decreases information density, forces a move away from the old standards to new much weaker ones. Tuis can't really do touch, so they don't have to make those tradeoffs.
I like chocolate I like vanilla
> I barely think about these things as “apps” (I have no intention to distribute them). They’re artifacts of me making my computer do stuff for me, the way I want it to. As a Unix nerd, I’ve always been able to do this, in the language of the command line. Now, it’s just as easy to do that kind of work with graphical interfaces.
And so the author (second sentence of the post)
> I built my first serious Mac application a few months ago, and since then I’ve built more native UI thingies than in my entire career prior to that.
I still build my personal stuff either for the command line (not even TUIs) or in a HTML page but I can see the point of creating a native app. Unfortunately there are some drawbacks: I would have to create the app for GNOME Debian and for Android, while a web app runs on both, and I would have to go all in on vibe coding because my last serious GUI programming has been in the 90s with Motif. The latter point is more or less the point of the author (the LLM does it for you) but it means that programming personal stuff will cost money paid to the LLMs companies. More and more money at each price hike and the multi thousand dollars box to run local models only makes the expense happen immediately instead of diluting over a long period.
You are free to build anything you like, and whatever you build won't affect me at all.
Let people enjoy things.
TUIs are a creative constraint.
TUIs are an invitation for programmers.
TUIs are doing "less" to render.
TUIs don't need to be "responsive".
Hello World is TUI.
- They encourage developing simpler, information-dense, and keyboard-driven interfaces, which I tend to prefer in general.
- I find them more fun to write, and less aggravating to maintain and debug, than interfaces built with GUI toolkits.
- Most software I write for personal use is going to be run in both a Linux and Mac OS environment (and a lot of the time on a headless server to boot), and a TUI often has less fuss than other options (at least, IME).
- I think monospaced text in a terminal just looks cool.
YMMV, of course, I'm just sharing my own experience and perspective.
Anything that lends itself to keyboard input, piping, text manipulation and a bunch of other things are so much faster if you're equally proficient in both input modes.
It is, of course, completely subjective, but I know there are a fair number of people out there who agree with that statement.
- Some are very good tools that have no clear GUI superiors. Vim, Emacs, Mc for example. GUI wrappers over these don't make them better.
- Efficient, meaning fast and limited in scope so you can learn the whole thing.
- The muscle memory you develop is transferable to any new platform or OS you use.
- Often free and OSS so they can't be taken away, making the muscle memory a long-term investment.
- If you work in the terminal for any other reason there's less context switch.
If there was a powerful, information dense, configurable docking/tiling, multi-application-composing GUI framework (all things a good terminal can do) then yes, build everything in that. I’d love to see it.
Until then, TUIs are vastly better than another Electron app or Mac app using UI frameworks that are trying their hardest to look and act like basic phone apps.
So even professional tools all follow industry design and product trends which are too simplistic, don’t give you the info you need, and are optimized for abstract brand design or chasing metrics for the company, and not optimized for “how do I let my user accomplish their task as fast as possible”
- keyboard can be used for pretty much everything
- less visually busy (no/less animations, background images/color variations. often close to plain text on plain background)
- more information dense (fewer things hidden behind hamburger menus, modals, drawers, etc)
- more/more easily customizable and documented
- more often can provide data directly into the terminal that I'm working in, so don't need to copy/paste through windows etc
these aren't necessarily impossible for GUI or universally true for TUI, but maybe I would guess just more an artifact of there being types of people who prefer working in the terminal who are then more likely to make TUIs, and I share their preferences more.
I enjoy the usability and self perceived speed of not having to leave the console or reach the mouse to move a pointer when a cople of key presees is enough.
It's a matter of choice, I know, but I also think there is a genuine case for text over graphics. I see it everyday on businesses that keep old cobol tpvs at the cash, the speed at which the clercks check inventories or perform other crm activities is unmatched to mouse or touch interfaces
If you want to automate from the perspective of what's on screen, tuis have no metadata. A button in a gui does have metadata associated with it, so you could automate 'click button x' where as in a TUI you'd be limited to clicking 'position x,y'
For GUIs you have to handle the particular metadata of a given framework, if it exposes metadata at all for the controls. Otherwise you're dealing with raw pixels which is an instant nightmare, though not so much now there are visual LLMs, but you're still paying for the tokens and/or extra processing.
First, a TUI is usable with only the keyboard. Moving the mouse is a waste of time, and if you are using an application multiple hours a day, it can lead to being more productive.
Second, a TUI has no useless animations, elements, etc. It's not pretty, you have on the screen only the stuff you need to do your job, and you are not distracted by useless elements.
Third, a TUI works beautifully in a client/server world, where you have one central computer and dumb clients that connects to it, and the connection can be a simple serial connection as well as a network connection. It can be rendered even with an ESP32, making it suitable for embedded HMIs and all kind of computing scenarios.
Lastly, the user can choose the font, the colors, the size of the font that are best for him, usually a monospace font that it's surely better to read information multiple hours a day.
To me it's the opposite, GUI interfaces were born to make it intuitive to use a computer, but are not as efficient as TUI in terms of productivity.
Is it? Many TUIs these days don't allow me to configure my usual key bindings for moving my cursor within input fields. Meanwhile, GTK offers (used to offer) a way to customize key bindings across all GTK applications. (Unfortunately, they removed that feature in recent versions. Now I understand why people always get so upset about the GNOME devs…)
I've used the same systems you describe, except in gui form.
And the thing is, with this kind of application, everyone has a different 20% that they spend 80% of their time using. Guis can be as good as the TUI in the 80%, and very handy in the 20% where you aren't so well versed.
The issue, is that guis seem to have dropped the ball with regards to efficiency.
The skills are useful, thanks for linking them! They'll be useful for my future projects like this. FWIW I've had good luck with using Claude Design first to do mocks.
At the same time, I think there's still the "is this worth doing a hyper-customized version of this software, if I'm also then responsible for fixing the bugs?". But I think increasingly as we improve our agentic workflows and make them more self-contained loops driving the result to completion, this becomes kind of a non-issue.
In general, I do think LLMs are bringing about a new age of hyper-customization, which I welcome.
One thing I think which is overlooked is the raw feeling of speed a good TUI can give you. The lowest grade consumer laptop could probably download my little dictionary program and still get true search-on-keystroke performance, because there is virtually nothing slowing down that path, no animations, no nothing. Now most of that comes down to the data structures involved and making sure nothing ever has to go over a network, but I still appreciate the sheer simplicity of the approach.
It's also nice to know that I can probably recompile this same exact code 50 years from now and still get it to run exactly as intended, since GUI frameworks have waxed and wanted in popularity, but terminals truly don't seem to be going anywhere.
Recently, I posted a GUI mp3 playing program written purely in Tcl/Tk using shell scripts for some things. On my 2011 desktop, filtering for a specific mp3 across all the mp3s stored on my computer (about 80GB of mp3s) takes single-digit milliseconds. I can only imagine what a modern desktop, with an SSD, will do!
GUI apps don't have to be laggy. My Qt and Lazarus apps aren't laggy at all, and are far more snappy and responsive than the clear majority of TUIs I use (like CC).
You like GUIs and want to build/use ones that works in MacOS, that's perfect go ahead and build as much GUIs as you want. However, this wouldn't work for me as I know how bad developing native cross-platform GUI applications is.
Making GUI apps has been way too hard on all platforms since forever. Frankly I think it's gotten worse for 20 years. People started fleeing to web wrappers like Electron to escape the horrors of native UI development.
So if that was the reason why you made a TUI, take heed. LLM's can chew through UI frameworks for you.
But I solidly believe TUIs are often better than GUIs even if they were equally easy to make. They liberate your app from having to follow the fracture and fashions of GUI's - Liquid glass, Windows 8, SwiftUI, WinUI3, QT, GTK or whatever. A TUI allows muscle memory that you learned on Solaris in the 90s to work fine in windows 11 in 2026.
It's inherently cross-platform (msys under windows). It allows to copy any part of UI. It doesn't require dependencies other than curses.
You can also just use the system console with tmux or GNU screen if you absolutely don't want any graphics at all.
The TUI programs usually do not consume a lot of resources. They are also very fast and optimized for keyboard-only navigation.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text-based_web_browser [2] https://github.com/browsh-org/browsh
I'd take TUI apps over electron apps everytime as long as the UX is good.
My stances:
- Dev tools need a CLI at minimum, TUI for complexity
- User facing needs a GUI, CLI for power users
If you're building a TUI for a user facing thing, then yeah, you're doing it wrong, but if your target audience is devs then yes, PLEASE do a TUI, and make it nice.
Well, that's a new one, ha ha (guessing "tripping balls" on GLP-1).
(And here I am too, about to be glipping balls… like everybody else, I suppose.)
Its also a bit funny how the author show cases a bunch of apps that only exist on a very specific setup, IOS Mac devices while TUI can exist everywhere a terminal can reach.
The right tool for the right job, noone would srsly use a TUI photoeditor but for many things the simplicity and constraints that a terminal introduces condenses design.
I got this article about UI density open since weeks and meant to read it https://mattstromawn.com/writing/ui-density/ But from what I could interfere so far..more UI frameworks, more white space, more wasted space.
Also..TUIs usually allow me a wide variety of colorschemes out of the box which is nice
They don't support standard GUI shortcuts. They don't support drag-and-drop. I can't double-click a file and have it open in a TUI. They don't integrate with spotlight metadata. They don't ship document icons. They have terrible support for accessibility APIs. And so on...
Ctrl c does 2 completely different things. Terminology is different. Etc.
Problem is. Terminal applications standardised in the 70s. Guis in the 90s. Although that's being undone by web apps, and the influence of touch screens.
We run an internal agentic development harness we experimentally built for working on large-ish projects. first version started as a TUI, but it quickly became unusable for the large scale projects it was meant to work on (essentially PRD to PR, with planning loops, task decomposition loops and dependency aware execution / review loops). The TUI was too state-bound for another agent to drive reliably, and too cramped for a human to review at scale. We ended up replacing the TUI with a headless cli, and every interface we've built for the harness has become either a text artifact (mostly for agents to work) or a web view (for humans to drive and review).
As in, using graphics, vectors, but with a fully text-based UI?
For something to become a GUI app (or a web-based UI) the GUI needs to offer something more valuable than a TUI can offer in terms of interaction.
I have one TUI app that wrote a while back to keep track of what I work on. It started off as a "wizard"-style UI. You choose project, then subproject, day, hours, activity and then hours and comment in a sequence of steps.
Arrow keys -> enter -> arrow keys -> enter .... -> comment -> enter
It takes about 2-3 seconds for me to do. And this is a time-sensitive task: if it isn't fast the user will not do it as often. There is a web interface to do the same thing, but the backend is slow. My TUI utility speeds that up by caching (between sessions) the things that the web UI has to look up (slowly) every time.
Then I wrote a more involved UI for it that "looks more like an application". Result? Now we were up to 15-20 seconds of interacting. Oh year it could do more and it certainly looked better, but it was less efficient so I noticed that I would postpone using it to record what I was doing. Because it now had friction. Lots of it. So a couple of weeks later I just did a hard reset and went back to the wizard style, minimalist version.
I would make a web UI, but that would burn 2-3 seconds just to navigate the browser there, juggle tabs (which I have too many of already), find the right browser to open the tab in etc. Once there do I keep it for "faster access" or close the tab? Keeping it is almost always the wrong thing.
There's a reason I have perhaps 15 different tools in my garage that can attach to a given fastener size. And there's a reason for that. Not all 19mm bolts are treated the same way. Some are low torque and live in tiny spaces. Some require precise fastening torque. Some need a lot of force to come loose - some will only come loose with force and I'm okay with destroying them. This is why I have so many tools that all do essentially the same job: apply rotational force to a piece of metal that has a standardized interface.
Similar tasks are not always best solved with the same tool because the context and the details do matter. Same goes for UIs. There are some things TUIs are very good at. Not least portability and remote usability.
maybe the answer is... you just don't need features like scrolling? this guy is trying to fit a square peg into a circle hole
While I don't use most of them, but I can see why TUIs they are popular around devs. But in this post it reads like this:
"I don't like slop TUIs because they are popular, but please look at my vibe coded slop GUIs and I like vibe coding them and you should too"
One of the worst, if not part of my top ten worst blog posts I have ever seen on this orange site and absolutely do not listen to that horrible take that the author just wrote.
TUIs, at least to me and some friends in my circles, do something that native applications don’t: demand focus from the user.
Sure, modern terminals and TTY environments have visual tabs and virtual terminals that let you quickly toggle between multiple apps, and you can of course manually code your screen to split apps across a single “window” if you really want to get into the guts of things.
But for several folks in my close circles (myself included), the fact that each TUI occupies an entire screen by default, forces us to focus on what’s going on and what tasks we’re trying to accomplish in a way native UIs don’t. On the desktop I can flit between Discord and Telegram and multiple games and several Firefox windows full of tabs and the video encode I’m working on and hey did that bank transaction go through let’s check my email except UGH music streaming went off the rails so let me go back to my client and-
You get the idea. For folks who lack the neurotransmitters to maintain consistent focus or wave off distractions, a terminal environment acts as an accessibility device in and of itself. btop on 1, irssi on 2, Hermes (Qwen 35B) on 3, with 4 as my primary workspace and 5 as a fallback. Simple. Clean. Efficient. Lightweight.
I generally concur with the author that we should be “summoning” (I love that word for reasons that deserve their own essay/comment) more native UI apps that are as information-dense as, well, Bloomberg Terminal. There’s no reason we can’t build something as powerful and focused for the everyman for, say, inventory collections, or K8s constructs, or network architecture, all in a native UI. There’s nothing wrong with the GUI, only that at some point we let ourselves get suckered for the narrative that GUIs have to be easy, simple, and opaque, as opposed to transparent and (logically) complex. We can and should build GUIs that flow logically like the commands they’re executing behind the scenes; hell, we should be able to open a console log of every action we took in the GUI and the associated command(s) it executed, so we can better learn to transpose from GUI to CLI ourselves and build more capable or complex automations.
GUI isn’t bad. TUI isn’t bad. What’s bad is presuming one or the other is superior to everything (or for everyone) else, or worse, assuming one cannot function in a given way comparable or equivalent to the other.
Back in the late 1980s, there was no question—the Mac changed everything, and everyone agreed that graphical was the superior interface. But we in the Unix world were slow to convert fully, because of a couple of problems:
* designing GUIs is hard, especially for programmers;
* writing GUI code is hard (and often tedious).
So good GUI apps really came from teams of elite designers and developers. The best ones all worked for Apple. There was an acceptable second tier that all came from major companies. If you wanted to write a custom one-off tool for yourself, however, you'd be in for some pain and the result would be jank.
But LLMs solve both problems. Point Claude at a description and some mockups of an app, and it will give you that app, or at least a slick-looking prototype that is suitable for your use if not the wider market's. So we no longer have an excuse. ALL our apps should be graphical, because creating graphical apps is now easy.
And sure, for programs for one go ham on the ui.
With X based apps, you can run GUI apps through SSH. That was all the rage for light remote access to resource hungry desktop app a few decades ago...
But that being said, in my opinion, a few limited TUI apps are useful, but most of them nowadays are young "cool kids" that wants to be cool by using "terminal apps" without really having really embraced the spirit of the terminal and commands.
For them, using GUI apps would look like a basic computer user and not an expert nerd.
The magic of the terminal, is not that you run things in almost black and white with low graphics, but that you were supposed to use "simple" commands that you can scripts and pipe one through each others at will.
They're fast, efficient, work across SSH, in a tmux, and survive the almost daily browser upgrades.
And they are easy to run as separate users without VNC or sandbox hell.
Like do you want to think about X/Wayland isolation, or do you just want to get shit done?
People are unable to do good GUIs. The web shows this; completely disregarding any UI guidelines by web people established since 80s is a proof that most people have no idea how to make GUIs.
I don't know how to make a good GUI. That's why I need good templates and strong guidelines, discipline and spend long time on design. Most people don't do that.
TUI is much, much easier. It's also possible to do bad TUIs, but it's easier to do a good TUI than to do an average GUI.
People write code using the platform X because they like it. It doesn't make sense to try to stop this
Put differently, a GUI application seems to subject you far more to the whims of Apple or Windows than a TUI and perhaps even a different run context. Maybe the permissions fiddling for this is insignificant. Is there a clear user contract from Apple or Microsoft about this?
Naturally, this is a non-issue in Linux.
No, for the love of god never stop making TUI's.
i.e. ignorance is bliss in the world of typography.
Lists a bunch of things .
Fails to make any clear points .
Fails to give real reasons for the few claims it makes .
I can see how LLMs help.
I wouldn't want to maintain software for other people entirely vibe coded. I think I might think again about native app development for my own needs, if it's kind of disposable.
- All those GUI windows look the same. How the fuck do I tell one app from the other?
- The abysmal corner radii are a clear indication of terminal macOS. Pun fully intended.
People talk shit about LLM writing. Well, here's a prime example of why I like LLM-speak. Does this article have personality? Yes. Attitude? Yes. Is it structured and accessible? No.
I'll take clarity over personality any day of the week.
Of course, I didn't mean to imply that there's a dichotomy between personality and clarity. There's a dichotomy between ordinary LLM writing and personality.
Here's an organically grown summary:
• TUIs suck because they are primitive, often buggy, hard to write and aren't accessible. Their existence isn't due to any real technical advantage but more because UNIX historically had a very bad UI toolkit (Motif) which established a 'culture' of TUIs.
• It's now easy (on macOS) to write native apps that use SwiftUI and give a much better GUI. You can just vibe code them.
• Some specific skills, features, templates etc are linked which look useful if you agree with this approach.
• You don't have to give up remote access because there's no reason the GUI has to run on the same machine as the thing it controls. A native GUI can just SSH in to a remote machine and run non-TUI CLI tools to control it. Lots of apps have worked this way and it functions fine.
• On the other hand, TUIs are portable (ish). The author concedes this may sometimes be useful.
I prefer my articles to be coherent without having to wade through pages worth of irrelevant material.
You want it graphical: Make a webapp.
You don't: Make a TUI.
What exactly is the use case for native apps? Even lots of legacy code can build to WASM now.
(yes, I'm exaggerating a bit, but not much)
I'll just copy a comment I made about this in another thread:
TUIs are just GUIs that use a grid of characters instead of pixels. They are strictly worse than true GUIs, by definition. The only thing I liked TUIs for is running over SSH, but can any of these newer ones really run over SSH with any kind of decent performance anyway?
I think people are confused and think they like TUIs because they like them being keyboard driven etc. But this could all be done with a GUI.
The other factor is probably just fashion. Similar to how some kids are now listening to music on cassette tapes, which are objectively worse than other media in almost all respects. The less cynical take is it's like vinyl: it does come with compromises but gives us back some of the things we lost over the years.
The actual interesting text-based interface is the CLI. I've seen a few examples of TUIs that really should be a CLI and would be much more useful as such.
Who tf cares about what the author who appears to be new to building native desktop apps (and vibe codes them) says about terminal apps?
I am not writing my code 3 times for each native platform even for agents and then dealing with signing keys just for it to break on a OS update. Terminal apps for developers survive all of this.
The entire article is just a massive rant with woefully weak points. I guess agents really does amplifies both Gell-Mann Amnesia and Dunning-Kruger in others.