131–140 of 264 posts
Does anyone get actual insightful reviews from these code review tools? From most people I've spoke with, it catches things like code complexity, linting, etc but nothing that actual relates to business logic because there's no way it could know about the business logic of the product
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OP isn't saying to do all of your work in the terminal; they're saying they prefer CLI-based LLM interfaces. You can have your IDE running alongside it just fine, and the CLIs can often present the changes as diffs in the IDEs too.
This is how some folks on my team work. Ran into this when I saved a file manually and the editor ran formatting on it. Turns out that the dev that wrote it only codes via CLI though reviews the files in an IDE so he never manually saved it and ran the formatter.
Bake that into the workflow some other way.
I'm really used to my Graphite workflow and I can't imagine going without it anymore. An acquisition like this is normally not good news for the product.
We currently let loose Gemini, Cursor Bugbot, Qodo, and even Sentry started reviewing PRs now. My usually prefer Gemini but sometimes other tools catch bugs Gemini doesn't. As someone who has never heard of Graphite, can anyone share their experience comparing it to any of the tools above?
Imo Cursor did had the first mover advantage by making the first well known AI coding agent IDE. But I can't help but think they have no realistic path forward. As someone who is a huge IDE fan, I vastly prefer the experience from Codex CLI compared to having that built into my IDE, which I customize for my general purposes. The fact it's a fork of VSCode (or whatever) will make me never use it. I wonder if they bet…
As someone who uses Cursor, i don't understand why anyone would use CLI AI coding tools as opposed to tools integrated in the IDE. There's so much more flexibility and integration, I feel like I would be much less productive otherwise. And I say this as someone who is fluent in vim in the shell. Now, would I prefer to use vs code with an extension instead? Yes, in the perfect world. But Cursor makes a better, more co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the other commenter stated, I don't use CLIs for development. I use VSCode. I'm very pro IDE. I've built up an entire collection of VSCode extensions and workflows for programming, building, customizing build & debugging embedded systems within VSCode. But I still prefer CLI based AI (when talking about an agent to the IDE version). > Composer 1 My bet is their model doesn't realistically compare to any of the fro…
> My bet is their model doesn't realistically compare to any of the frontier models. I've been using composer-1 in Cursor for a few weeks and also switching back and forth between it, Gemini Flash 3, Claude Opus 4.5, Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GPT 5.2. And you're right it's not comparable. It's about the same quality of code output of the aforementioned models but about 4x as fast. Which enables a qualitatively different…
The Copilot version of this is just fucking terrible at suggesting anything remotely useful about our codebase.
I've had reasonable success just sticking single giant functions into context and asking Sonnet 4.5 targeted questions (is anything in this function modifying X, does this function appear to be doing Y) as a shortcut for reading through the whole thing or scattershot text search.
When I try to give it a whole file I actually hit single-query token limits.
But that's very "opt-in" on my part, and different from how I understand Cursor to work.
Imo Cursor did had the first mover advantage by making the first well known AI coding agent IDE. But I can't help but think they have no realistic path forward. As someone who is a huge IDE fan, I vastly prefer the experience from Codex CLI compared to having that built into my IDE, which I customize for my general purposes. The fact it's a fork of VSCode (or whatever) will make me never use it. I wonder if they bet…
As someone who uses Cursor, i don't understand why anyone would use CLI AI coding tools as opposed to tools integrated in the IDE. There's so much more flexibility and integration, I feel like I would be much less productive otherwise. And I say this as someone who is fluent in vim in the shell. Now, would I prefer to use vs code with an extension instead? Yes, in the perfect world. But Cursor makes a better, more co…
I also like how cursor is model-agnostic. I prefer codex for first drafts (it's more precise and produces less code), for Claude when less precision or planning is required, and other, faster models when possible.
Also, one of cursor's best features is rollback. I know people have some funky ways to do it in CC with git work trees etc, but it's built into cursor.
Imo Cursor did had the first mover advantage by making the first well known AI coding agent IDE. But I can't help but think they have no realistic path forward. As someone who is a huge IDE fan, I vastly prefer the experience from Codex CLI compared to having that built into my IDE, which I customize for my general purposes. The fact it's a fork of VSCode (or whatever) will make me never use it. I wonder if they bet…
What I don't understand why people would go all in on one IDE/editor and refuse to make plugins for others. Whether you prefer the CLI or the integrated experience, only offering it on vscode (and a shitty version of it, as well) is just stupid.
Imo Cursor did had the first mover advantage by making the first well known AI coding agent IDE. But I can't help but think they have no realistic path forward. As someone who is a huge IDE fan, I vastly prefer the experience from Codex CLI compared to having that built into my IDE, which I customize for my general purposes. The fact it's a fork of VSCode (or whatever) will make me never use it. I wonder if they bet…
Yeah, hard disagree on that one, based on recent surveys, 80-90% of developers globally use IDEs over CLIs for their day-to-day work. I was pretty worried about Cursor's business until they launched their Composer 1 model, which is fine-tuned to work amazingly well in their IDE. It's significantly faster than using any other model, and it's clearly fine-tuned for the type of work people use Cursor for. They are also…
I have absolutely no horse in this race, but I turned from a 100% Cursor user at the beginning of the year, to one that basically uses agents for 90% of my work, and VS Code for the rest of it. The value proposition that Cursor gave me was not able to compete with what the basic Max subscription on anthropic gave me, and VS Code is still a superior experience to Claude in the IDE space.
I think though that Cursor has all the potential to beat Microsoft at the IDE game if they focus on it. But I would say it's by no way a given that this is the default outcome.
Imo Cursor did had the first mover advantage by making the first well known AI coding agent IDE. But I can't help but think they have no realistic path forward. As someone who is a huge IDE fan, I vastly prefer the experience from Codex CLI compared to having that built into my IDE, which I customize for my general purposes. The fact it's a fork of VSCode (or whatever) will make me never use it. I wonder if they bet…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My bet is their model doesn't realistically compare to any of the frontier models. I've been using composer-1 in Cursor for a few weeks and also switching back and forth between it, Gemini Flash 3, Claude Opus 4.5, Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GPT 5.2. And you're right it's not comparable. It's about the same quality of code output of the aforementioned models but about 4x as fast. Which enables a qualitatively different…
Does it have some huge context window? Or is it really good at grep? The Copilot version of this is just fucking terrible at suggesting anything remotely useful about our codebase. I've had reasonable success just sticking single giant functions into context and asking Sonnet 4.5 targeted questions (is anything in this function modifying X, does this function appear to be doing Y) as a shortcut for reading through th…
And when I open it in the parent directory of a bunch of repos in our codebase, it can very quickly trace data flow through a bunch of different services. It will tell me all the files the data goes through.
It's context window is "only" 200k tokens. When it gets near 200k, it compresses the conversation and starts a new conversation..... which mostly works but sometimes it has a bit of amnesia if you have a really long running conversation on something.