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

Cursor 3

cursor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 438 posts

Re: Cursor 3

#101

Post by ninininino »

zwaps wrote: post #97
w29UiIm2Xz wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Cursor user who hasn't tried Claude Code yet, am I missing anything? I seem (sometimes) exceptionally productive in it and it's working for me. To my understanding, Claude Code is all terminal, but something like an IDE seems like the better interface to me: I want to see the file system, etc. It seems Cursor doesn't have the mindshare relative to Claude in public discussion spaces.

Claude Code is where you move up one abstraction layer. Almost everyone using it productively has spend a lot of time working on their harness, ensuring that everything is planned out and structured such that all that is left is really type in the code. This typically works without error. Before that, you interact a lot via Claude Code in whatever abstraction you feel is right. That's basically it. You can review cha…

> Cursor, same as Copilot, has been used by people who are basically pair programming with the AI. So, on abstraction down.

This is not really true anymore.

Cursor has better cloud agents than Claude. The multi-agent experience is better, the worktree management is better. Tagging specific code or files in chat is better.

It's hard for me to express the level of pain and frustration I feel going from Cursor to Claude / Conductor+Claude / Claude Extension for VS Code, Claude in Zed, etc.

Really hoping Claude puts more energy into Cowork as a competitor for Cursor and Codex.

Re: Cursor 3

#102

Post by zwaps »

davidgomes wrote: post #6
minimaxir wrote: post #2

So it has converged to the same UI/UX as the Claude/Codex desktop apps. If that's the case, why use Cursor over those more canonical apps?

1. Cursor is multi-model, meaning you can use at least a dozen different models. 2. Cursor's UI allows you to edit files, and even have the good old auto-complete when editing code. 3. Cursor's VSCode-based IDE is still around! I still love using it daily. 4. Cursor also has a CLI. 5. Perhaps more importantly, Cursor has a Cloud platform product with automations, extremely long-lived agents and lots of other features…

Let me give this a shot:

Cursor was the tool you use to pair program with AI. Where the AI types the code, and you direct it as you go along. This is a workflow where you work in code and you end up with something fundamentally correct to your standards.

Claude Code is the tool you use if you want to move one abstraction layer up - use harness, specs, verifications etc. to nail down the thing such that the only task left is type in the code - a thing AI does well. This is a workflow where the correctness depends on a lot of factors, but the idea is to abstract one level up from code. Fundamentally, it would be successful if you don't need to look at code at all.

I think there is not enough data to conclusively say which of these two concepts is better, even taking into account some trajectory of model development.

I do feel that any reason I have for installing Cursor is that I want to do workflow 1, rather than workflow 2. Cause I have a pretty comprehensive setup of claude code (or opencode, or whatevs) and I think it does everything you list here.

So, as a product engineer, you probably wanna mention why it matters that Cursor UI allows you to edit files with auto-complete.

Re: Cursor 3

#103

Post by wilkystyle »

fragmede wrote: post #95
nu11ptr wrote: post #91

I've been running Claude Code in my Cursor IDE for a while now via extension. I like the setup, and I direct Claude on one task at a time, while still having full access to my code (and nice completions via Cursor). I still spend time tweaking, etc. before committing. I have zero interest in these new "swarms of agents" they are trying to force on us from every direction. I can barely keep straight my code working on…

> have zero interest in these new "swarms of agents" they are trying to force on us from every direction. Good for you! Personally waiting for one agent to do something while I shove my thumb up my butt just waiting around for it to generate code that I'll have to fix anyway is peak opposite of flow state, so I've eagerly adopted agents (how much free will I had in that decision is for philosophers to decide) so ther…

I have personally found that I cannot context switch between thinking deeply about two separate problems and workstreams without a significant cognitive context-switching cost. If it's context-switching between things that don't require super-deep thought, it's definitely doable, but I'm still way more mentally burnt-out after an hour or two of essentially speed-running review of small PRs from a bunch of different sources.

Curious to know more about your work:

Are your agents working on tangential problems? If so, how do you ensure you're still thinking at a sufficient level of depth and capacity about each problem each agent is working on?

Or are they working on different threads of the same problem? If so, how do you keep them from stepping on each other's toes? People mention git worktrees, but that doesn't solve the conflict problem for multiple agents touching the same areas of functionality (i.e. you just move the conflict problem to the PR merge stage)

Re: Cursor 3

#104

Post by Hoefner »

throwaw12 wrote: post #96
seamossfet wrote: post #11

Man, I wish they'd keep the old philosophy of letting the developer drive and the agent assist. I feel like this design direction is leaning more towards a chat interface as a first class citizen and the code itself as a secondary concern. I really don't like that. Even when I'm using AI agents to write code, I still find myself spending most of my time reading and reasoning about code. Showing me little snippets of…

> I still want to _code_ not just vibe my way through tickets. Now we have 3 ways of coding: * vim / emacs - full manual * VSCode / IntelliJ - semi-automatic * ClaudeCode/Codex/OpenCode/... - fully automated Cursor can't stay in between

Cursor CLI exist - https://cursor.com/cli

Re: Cursor 3

#105

Post by zwaps »

lubujackson wrote: post #62
minimaxir wrote: post #2

So it has converged to the same UI/UX as the Claude/Codex desktop apps. If that's the case, why use Cursor over those more canonical apps?

For $20 a month, I can plan and implements a couple features in 4 hours with Claude. Then I have to wait. For $20 a month, I can plan and implement thousands of features using Composer 2 or Auto with Cursor. The usage limits are insanely higher. Yes, the depth of understanding is not Opus 4.6, but most work doesn't need that. And the work that does need it I pass to Claude. I can code 8 hours a day using LLMs as my p…

My man, have seen the Sonnet 4.6 tho

Re: Cursor 3

#106

Post by ninininino »

babelfish wrote: post #84

No per-agent auto-worktree? This is the killer feature of Conductor, having to type `/worktree` into every new chat isn't really a resolution. Not even sure what selecting 'Worktree' for a new chat does

"having to type `/worktree` into every new chat isn't really a resolution"

I don't know what you're talking about. My experience with Cursor (before this new v3) is that new Cursor agent tabs / cloud agents already intelligently manage worktrees to prevent conflicts.

Re: Cursor 3

#107

Post by tredre3 »

acedTrex wrote: post #18

So they are just turning into another vibe code slop app? At least before they were tangentially still an actual developer tool, standard vsc windows, the code was the point etc. Now they offer really nothing interesting for professionals.

> Now they offer really nothing interesting for professionals.

That's a curious statement given that what they're doing is just becoming more like Claude Code, which seems extremely popular on this forum.

Re: Cursor 3

#108

Post by yieldcrv »

seamossfet wrote: post #11

Man, I wish they'd keep the old philosophy of letting the developer drive and the agent assist. I feel like this design direction is leaning more towards a chat interface as a first class citizen and the code itself as a secondary concern. I really don't like that. Even when I'm using AI agents to write code, I still find myself spending most of my time reading and reasoning about code. Showing me little snippets of…

At least these are IDEs with the save button finally gone

We needed that jump, there were still floppy disk icons

Re: Cursor 3

#109

Post by MangoCoffee »

pjmlp wrote: post #20

What would all these companies do without Microsoft shipping VS Code as open source, probably still stuck with vi and Emacs. Still curious which ones will survive when the AI gold diggers finally settle.

every AI lab have cli for agent coding. you don't need VS Code. if you want coding agent to write code for you just use cli then use any IDE, text editor or whatever you prefer to review, edit or write code.

Re: Cursor 3

#110

Post by vorticalbox »

Hoefner wrote: post #104
throwaw12 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I still want to _code_ not just vibe my way through tickets. Now we have 3 ways of coding: * vim / emacs - full manual * VSCode / IntelliJ - semi-automatic * ClaudeCode/Codex/OpenCode/... - fully automated Cursor can't stay in between

Cursor CLI exist - https://cursor.com/cli

This is how use cursor 99% of the time. The other 1% is in zed.
Post reply on HN