Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

cursor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 238 posts

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#151

Post by zackify »

mohsen1 wrote: post #79
jtwaleson wrote: post #26

Ok this might be weird but I've moved everyone in my 4 person team to our team plan and costs seem to have sky rocketed compared to the individual plans. Where before most people spent 20-100 USD, now the total bill is more like 1k USD. I haven't gone into the details but it feels like I'm being scammed.

We moved off Cursor and onto Codex + Claude Code. Cost went from multiple thousand per engineer per month to about $500

Best deal currently:

Cursor team Codex team Claude team

Swap between the models when limited.

I am saving our company a lot of money vs Claude enterprise usage cost

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#153

Post by machiaweliczny »

Tested and it's good. Fast version is bad though. I like planning model in Cursor that it works more like human written design doc instead of too detailed AI plan. Seems like this is more responsible for results that model but still on fast it failed but on normal got good results.

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#154

Post by nl »

chillfox wrote: post #87
infecto wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure we should dismiss what they have today. Nobody has yet to come close with a full package ide that works well for coding. Is that not a moat? It is easy for my to in my head discount it, thinking that I could build something myself but between autocomplete and their workflow for agent use, it feels like they have some tangible moat emerging.

Have you tried Zed? I haven’t tried Cursor, so don’t know how they compare, but I like Zed a lot. Anyway, would love to see a comparison from someone who has used a recent version of each.

I've tried Zed and really didn't like it.

I like VS Code with the Claude Plugin, and sometimes with the Codex Plugin

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#155

Post by WhitneyLand »

Say what you want about Cursor but they don’t lack for ambition.

Forking VS Code, going big on bleeding edge features like cloud agents, and now they’ve thrown down the gauntlet directly challenging frontier labs by training their own model (“much larger” than Kimi 2.5’s 1T parameters) from scratch.

They’ve been highly successful so far. Raised $50B, $2B in revenue, forecast to end 2026 above $6B. But even at these heights, they’re just not in the same league as OpenAI/Anthropic/Google.

And if building a state of the art multitrillion parameter model is not challenging enough, it’s a mountain you don’t climb just once. Every few months you need to push it farther with a new release. Fall off for a couple cycles and like Facebook you may never catch up again.

Not for the faint of heart.

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#156

Post by monsieurbanana »

arcanemachiner wrote: post #83
uxcolumbo wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Been a bit out of the loop. What's wrong with using very short sentences like 'That's not X. That's Y.'?

Commonly used phrase by LLMs. Gives people slop vibes these days.

Huh. I associate it with LinkedIn slop, which is probably 100% ai nowadays but they certainly didn't wait for llms.

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#157

Post by enraged_camel »

I tested it yesterday. It is pretty bad. Just like with Composer 2, it's fast, but quality is nowhere near what Cursor claims with their benchmarks. It is not even at Opus 4.5 level.

I gave it a mix of refactoring tasks and new feature tasks. For each one, I had it write a plan, then I had Codex review it. Codex found major issues with every plan: patterns that don't match the rest of the code base, hallucinated variable/function names, and even outright bugs in the way the plan was written. I fed the feedback to Composer 2. After it made the changes and implemented the revised plan, I had Codex and Opus 4.7 do code reviews, and once again both of them found major bugs.

Overall it was a very frustrating experience. I feel like I wasted a whole day. Which is sad, as I have been looking for an excuse to come back to Cursor. But as things stand, Codex + CC combo cannot be beat, not just in terms of price but also quality.

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#158

Post by causal »

WhitneyLand wrote: post #155

Say what you want about Cursor but they don’t lack for ambition. Forking VS Code, going big on bleeding edge features like cloud agents, and now they’ve thrown down the gauntlet directly challenging frontier labs by training their own model (“much larger” than Kimi 2.5’s 1T parameters) from scratch. They’ve been highly successful so far. Raised $50B, $2B in revenue, forecast to end 2026 above $6B. But even at these h…

Yeah I want them to do well. I find Cursor to be a much better tool for actually working with the code the agent writes than whatever the big vendors provide.

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#160

Post by wesammikhail »

steviedotboston wrote: post #159

It's very confusing that they use the same name as the very well known PHP package manager, composer https://getcomposer.org/

I dont know what it is with products names these days. Antigravity, Antimatter, Composer, Clay, Ramp, Bolt, etc.

You'd think the founders would Google for naming conflict before choosing a name.

Post reply on HN