Grok Build(x.ai) |
Grok Build(x.ai) |
However, the TUI as shown in a post [0] by one of their engineers is quite beautiful. For a moment I thought it was written in Python because it looks similar to Textual [1] but I inspected the binary for my platform [2] and it seems to be written in Rust. I guess Ratatui is quite customizable!
The state of its Windows support is unclear to me. The Bash installer script [3] has a comment on top that says "Windows: run under Git for Windows / MSYS2 Bash (same curl | bash flow); WSL uses the Linux binary." I ran the binary normally in a Nushell session and didn't encounter any issue other than a start-up time that was slower than expected on the first run. Perhaps I would have seen issues had I gotten past the login step.
[0]: https://x.com/skcd42/status/2054993372662915183
[1]: https://github.com/Textualize/textual
[2]: https://storage.googleapis.com/grok-build-public-artifacts/c...
We worked quite heavily on the TUI, its written in ratatui and we did try to go the extra mile to make sure that there won't be any regressions from moving to an alt-screen rendering. Lots and lots of small details to manage and get correct, we also tried to get vim keybindings correct while keeping it mouse friendly.
As someone who has had Grok since it came out, I used to pay $40 a month, but then I started using Claude more often, I'm on Claude Max since I use it more than the lower subscription can handle. I at one point built my own Grok compatible coding harness, but Grok was underwhelming for me, I have not had the time or energy to burn $$$ just to make Grok work better with my harness, but I'm not spending $300 a month on something my employer will never approve me to use, I'd love to use it but the pricing will have to come drastically down.
yeah this one is a bit weird, you can run the linux binary using WSL and that should work. We have a window flavor build but its not as heavily tested yet (we are figuring out a better testing flow for windows)
Good, they are explicitly supporting automation similar to OpenAI.
$ claude -h
Usage: claude [options] [command] [prompt]
Claude Code - starts an interactive session by default, use -p/--print for non-interactive output
$ gemini -h
Usage: gemini [options] [command]
Gemini CLI - Defaults to interactive mode. Use -p/--prompt for non-interactive (headless) mode.
$ copilot -h
Usage: copilot [options] [command]
GitHub Copilot CLI - An AI-powered coding assistant.
Start an interactive session to chat with Copilot, or use -p/--prompt for non-interactive scripting.
> Starting June 15, 2026, Claude Agent SDK and claude -p usage no longer counts toward your Claude plan’s usage limits. Your subscription usage limits stay the same and stay reserved for interactive use of Claude Code, Claude Cowork, and Claude.
Would have been curious to compare against the other competitors
Just feels like they are a bit late to the CLI coding agent party. So why not get in with a bang and open up to a broader audience?
All other agents have a lower barrier to try and play around.
Curious too about open sourcing. But they seem to be doing -p mode and ACP right already. Anthropic is opening a lot of opportunities for competitors right now
The xAI casino wants all of your money even if you don't use it for a month.
Selling tools to others when you’re not using them yourself says everything about the underlying utility of what’s being sold.
xAI could be threatening Office, or Windows, or Unreal Engine, Chromium, SalesForce, global ERP, tax software for citizens and governments alike, or Apples manufacturing prowess… but, no, forget that lame nonsense, let’s see what I have in my wallet! Maybe I can give some to Elon to cover up his sketchy business practices. Sounds logical.
“If you’re so good at building salesforce, why don’t you simply sell paper yourself?”
I’m good with the open source options.
OpenCode and Pi agent are much more customizable than the proprietary options will ever be.
More expensive, as good or worse at the job, and it runs in the terminal, because that's cool?
Centrally, I mentioned partnering, and specifically in the context of tools being sold for less value than the profit they could make. That is is fundamentally different to the retort provided (direct sales of paper).
The issue applies quite specifically to tooling and services (ie SEO and super coding LLMs), that improve customer profitability through capabilities. If the tool/service utility is so high and profitable then selling it to third parties is far less profitable than leveraging the tool/service fully as an owner.
If someone is selling you something for less money than they can make using that thing, the business model is suspicious. Scams, normally.
What unique process advantage does SalesForce sell that applies to paper production and end customer delivery? None. Cutting edge coding agents with cheap tokens for any IT work? Massive, in theory…
If SalesForce is selling a subscription tool that makes my paper cost 30% less, why not partner with the #3 largest paper supplier, fully integrate and give them a 30%+ exclusive competitive advantage, making SalesForce a part owner of the #1 paper company? … one of those business models relies on scale, credit cards, and customer loyalty for small money, the other only on effective technology for huge money (and far less risk).
This is not a new point, there are well regarded essays breaking it down. “I’m so rich I want to sell you info about how to sell instead of more money for less work.”, is a scammy pitch present in MLMs, bad Real Estate courses, Get Rich courses, etc.
https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15036540-use-the-clau...