why Claude Code wins the terminal

by Ray Svitla

the conventional wisdom says AI coding tools should live inside your IDE. makes sense on the surface — that’s where you write code, so that’s where AI should help you write code. Cursor, Copilot, Windsurf, Codeium — they all started from this premise.

Claude Code said no. the terminal. just text. no syntax highlighting, no file tree, no inline suggestions. and somehow it works better for the things that actually matter.

here’s why.

the IDE trap

IDEs are designed around a specific interaction model: you write code, and the tool helps you write code faster. autocomplete, refactoring shortcuts, inline documentation, error squiggles. the human is the driver. the tool is the assistant.

this model made perfect sense when AI could suggest the next few tokens. it made less sense when AI could write entire functions. it makes almost no sense when AI can read a codebase, plan a multi-file refactor, implement it, write tests, and run them.

at some point the interaction model inverted. you’re not writing code with AI assistance. you’re delegating tasks to an AI and reviewing the results. the IDE’s entire UX — designed around a human typing — becomes overhead for a workflow where the human isn’t typing much at all.

what terminal-native gets right

zero UI overhead

Claude Code has no file tree to navigate, no tabs to manage, no settings dialogs, no plugin panels. there’s a text prompt and there’s output. every pixel of your screen is either input or result.

this sounds like a limitation. it’s a feature. when your interaction with AI is “describe task → review result → approve or iterate,” you don’t need a visual editor. you need a fast feedback loop. the terminal provides the fastest one possible.

composability

the terminal is the original integration platform. pipes, redirects, scripts, aliases, cron jobs. Claude Code inherits all of it.

# run Claude Code on every directory in a monorepo
for dir in packages/*/; do
  cd "$dir" && claude -p "run tests and fix any failures" && cd ../..
done

# use Claude Code in a CI pipeline
claude -p "review this diff for security issues" < <(git diff main)

try doing either of these in an IDE-based tool. you’ll need a plugin, a configuration file, and probably a prayer.

SSH and remote development

Claude Code works anywhere you have a terminal. SSH into a production server. run it inside a Docker container. use it on a Raspberry Pi. tmux it into a persistent session on a cloud VM.

IDE-based tools need the IDE running. locally. with your display attached. remote development extensions exist but they’re fragile, slow, and limited compared to just SSH.

parallel sessions

open five terminal windows. run five Claude Code sessions on five different tasks. each one works independently. there’s no “workspace” conflict, no file locking, no “another instance is already running.”

the parallel sessions guide covers patterns for this. it’s one of Claude Code’s most underrated capabilities.

scriptability

Claude Code has a non-interactive mode (-p flag) that makes it a building block for larger systems:

claude -p "generate a changelog from the last 20 commits" > CHANGELOG.md

it’s a CLI tool. CLI tools compose. IDE tools don’t.

the counterarguments (and why they’re partially right)

“I need to see the code”

fair. visual feedback matters. but you can see the code — Claude Code shows diffs before applying changes, and your editor of choice is always one vim or code . away. the argument isn’t “never look at code.” it’s “you don’t need to look at code while the AI is writing it.”

“autocomplete is valuable”

it is. for writing code character-by-character, nothing beats good autocomplete. but the more you use AI agents, the less time you spend typing code yourself. autocomplete optimizes the wrong thing when your workflow is “describe → delegate → review.”

that said, Claude Code and Copilot side-by-side is a legitimate setup. see the comparison .

“visual diffs are easier to review”

true. when Claude Code finishes a task, I often open the changes in a proper diff viewer. the review step benefits from visual tools. the execution step doesn’t.

the deeper point

the terminal isn’t a UI choice. it’s an architecture choice.

terminal-native means the tool is a process, not an application. processes compose, script, parallelize, and remote-execute. applications have windows, states, preferences, and compatibility issues.

Claude Code being terminal-native means it can be a building block in systems that don’t exist yet. CI/CD pipelines, monitoring hooks, automated workflows, multi-agent orchestrations — all possible because the foundation is a CLI process, not a GUI application.

IDE-based tools are optimized for today’s workflow. terminal-native tools are optimized for the workflow that’s emerging — one where the human’s job is to direct agents, not to type code.

the bet

Claude Code is betting that the future of coding is delegation, not assistance. that the right interface for AI coding is the one that gets out of the way and lets the agent work.

it’s a bet. it might be wrong. maybe the future is richer visual interfaces that show you exactly what the agent is thinking and let you steer with direct manipulation. maybe.

but right now, in early 2026, the developers who ship the fastest are the ones with a terminal, a good CLAUDE.md, and the discipline to delegate tasks larger than “write this function.” the terminal turns out to be exactly the right interface for that.

who would have thought that the oldest interface in computing would be the best one for the newest technology. Douglas Adams would have enjoyed that.

Ray Svitla stay evolving