1. Novelty & hype vs. practical value
The tool is celebrated for its “cool” design‑tool vibe, but many users point out that it feels more like a gimmick than a usable product.
- “This is so cool I immediately wanted to convert my apps. But then when I thought about it, well it's trying to recreate CSS but in a majorly worse way.” – tim‑projects
- “The fact that this isn't a TUI itself is a bit disappointing.” – elxr
- “What’s the point of having this if code generation is not functional yet? That is the entire point of this app.” – sabas123
2. What really counts as a TUI?
A long‑running debate about the boundary between terminal‑based interfaces and low‑resolution GUIs dominates the thread.
- “A GUI that is built with Text, and intended to be used in a Terminal, is what a TUI is, colloquially AND definitionally.” – drakythe
- “If you start adding mouse clickable tabs, buttons, checkboxes etc. you left the UX for TUIs behind and applied the UX expected for GUIs.” – eterps
- “The vibe might not be a necessary reason, but it is a sufficient one.” – clickety_clack
3. Usability, performance, and accessibility concerns
Even the most enthusiastic comments are tempered by worries about real‑world use: code export, resource usage, remote access, and screen‑reader support.
- “The website UI is unreal, I loved the idea … but the code export is not functional yet.” – jbstack
- “The lack of accessibility of TUIs is not great in general.” – jiehong
- “This website eats a whole CPU core.” – WhereIsTheTruth
These three themes—novelty vs. usefulness, the TUI/GUIs boundary, and practical usability—capture the bulk of the discussion.