141–150 of 169 posts
I'd love to hear from folks who mainly use Claude Code on why they prefer it and how they compare. It seems to be the most popular option here in HN, or at least the most frequently mentioned, and I never quite got why. I always preferred the deep IDE integration that Cursor offers. I do use AI extensively for coding, but as a tool in the toolbox, it's not always the best in every context, and I see myself often swit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like the "accept/undo" feature because it allows for much more granular control. You can accept some files or lines, and give feedback or intervene manually in other parts. I don't like building up technical debt by accepting everything by default.
As in chess, stock trading, and combat aviation, people at first believed humans ought to curate computer-generated strategies. Then it become obvious the humans were unnecessary.
It’s still plenty useful of course, but it absolutely needs constant babysitting for now, which is fine. I like AI coding tools that acknowledge those limits and help you work around them, rather than just pretending its magic and hiding its workings from you as an autonomous background process. Maybe soon such need for control will become obsolete, awesome, I will be the first one onboard.
PS:
Chess AI is definitely superhuman now, but Stockfish is a small NN surrounded by tons of carefully human-engineered heuristics and rules. Training an LLM (or any end-to-end self-supervised model) to be superhuman at chess is still surprisingly hard. I did some serious R&D on it a while back. Maybe we’ve gotten there in the last few years, not sure, but it’s very new and still not that much better than the best players.
Most real-world stock trading is still carefully supervised and managed by human traders. Even for automated high-frequency trading, what really works is to have an army of mathematicians devising lots of trading scripts, trading with proper deep-learning/reinforcement-learning is still surprisingly niche and unsuccessful.
Also combat aviation is far from being automated, sure they can bomb but not dogfight, and most drones are remote controlled dumb puppets.
I do agree with your point generally, but any good engineer needs to understand the details of where we are at so we can make real progress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason is abundantly clear. Cursor was just a GPT wrapper with a nice UI/UX (which was very nice when it came out) it has some other models like autocomplete as well, but its still a wrapper. OpenAI and Anthropic build and train models specifically to work via CLI driven processes, which is why they are so much better now. Cursor is basically dead as I'm sure they realized they get much better performance with th…
> just a GPT wrapper Cursor's tab auto complete isn't, and it's the greatest strength point of the product
I'd love to hear from folks who mainly use Claude Code on why they prefer it and how they compare. It seems to be the most popular option here in HN, or at least the most frequently mentioned, and I never quite got why. I always preferred the deep IDE integration that Cursor offers. I do use AI extensively for coding, but as a tool in the toolbox, it's not always the best in every context, and I see myself often swit…
The official tools won't necessarily give you the best performance, but they're a safer bet for now. This is merely anecdotal as I haven't bothered to check rigorously, but I and others online have found that GPT-5-Codex is worse in Cursor than in the official CLI/extension/web UI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
not only that but the way that openai and claude have their own foundational models/agents trained to work via CLI, which will basically always be better than just cursors gpt wrapper approach.
How are they trained to work via CLI? You prompt it and it returns response. Where does the CLI come into play?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason is abundantly clear. Cursor was just a GPT wrapper with a nice UI/UX (which was very nice when it came out) it has some other models like autocomplete as well, but its still a wrapper. OpenAI and Anthropic build and train models specifically to work via CLI driven processes, which is why they are so much better now. Cursor is basically dead as I'm sure they realized they get much better performance with th…
> OpenAI and Anthropic build and train models specifically to work via CLI driven processes, Cursor agents open terminals just fine in VSCode and is a major part of how Cursor works. I personally code in VSCode text editor prior to Cursor (left VIM a while ago) and prefer to stay in the context of a desktop text editor. I find it's easier to see what's changing in real time, with a file list, file tabs, top level and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like you're still using the terminal. I'm talking about https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=anthropi...
That's exactly the one I'm discussing. The extension pane runs in a terminal and has all the behaviors mentioned. Unless they rewrote the thing in Electron it doesn't use normal UI keyboard shortcuts or controls.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly the one I'm discussing. The extension pane runs in a terminal and has all the behaviors mentioned. Unless they rewrote the thing in Electron it doesn't use normal UI keyboard shortcuts or controls.
The native vs code extension experience was just released a couple days ago, it is no longer a terminal wrapper.
Cursor will soon be irrelevant. The one thing that it excels at is autocomplete, and that's ironically the one feature they bought out and integrated (Supermaven) instead of developing themselves, which sums it up quite well. It's still making good money based on having been first to market , but it's market share has been in freefall for ages, only accelerating. The agentic side is nothing special and it's expensive…
source?