Live data from Hacker News

Cursor 3

cursor.com

201–210 of 438 posts

Re: Cursor 3

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess would be this is less driven by product philosophy, more driven by trying to maximise chances of a return on a very large amount of funding in an incredibly tough market up against formidable, absurdly well-funded competitors. It's a very tough spot they're in. They have a great product in the code-first philosophy, but it may turn out it's too small a market where the margins will just be competed away to z…

As these products mature people are going to see more of this stuff. These are the contours of the market. The technology is incredible but it’s still subservient to the economics of building products. It’s the “why can’t Facebook just show me a chronological feed of people I follow”. Because it’s not in their interests to do so.

Yeah, and just like all social media platforms adopted short form video sooner or later they are going to give in to what consumers pay for (in attention or money). Right now it's anyone's guess what that might be in the context of software development.

Re: Cursor 3

#203
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 find it puzzling whenever someone claims to reach "flow" or "zen state" when using these tools. Reviewing and testing code, constantly switching contexts, juggling model contexts, coming up with prompt incantations to coax the model into the right direction, etc., is so mentally taxing and full of interruptions and micromanagement that it's practically impossible to achieve any sort of "flow" or "zen state". This i…

Thank you so much. These comments let me believe in my sanity in an over-hyped world.

I see how people think its more productive, but honestly I iterate on my code like 10-15 times before it goes into production, to make sure it logs the right things, it communicates intent clearly, the types are shared and defined where they should be. It’s stored in the right folder and so on.

Whilst the laziness to just pass it to CC is there I feel more productive writing it on my own, because I go in small iterations. Especially when I need to test stuff.

Let’s say I have to build an automated workflow and for step 1 alone I need to test error handling, max concurrency, set up idempotency, proper logging. Proper intent communication to my future self. Once I’m done I never have to worry about this specific code again (ok some error can be tricky to be fair), but often this function is just practically my thought and whenever i need it. This only works with good variable naming and also good spacing of a function. Nobody really talks about it, but if a very unimportant part takes a lot of space in a service it should be probably refactored into a smaller service.

The goal is to have a function that I probably never have to look again and if I have to do it answers me as fast as possible all the questions my future self would ask when he’s forgotten what decisions needed to be made or how the external parts are working. When it breaks I know what went wrong and when I run it in an orchestration I have the right amount of feedback.

As others I could go very long about that and I’m aware of the other side of the coin overengineering, but I just feel that having solid composable units is just actually enabling to later build features and functionality that might be moat.

Slow, flaky units aren’t less likely to become an asset..

And even if I let AI draft the initial flow, honestly the review will never be as good as the step by step stuff I built.

I have to say AI is great to improve you as a developer to double check you, to answer (broad questions), before it gets to detailed and you need to experiment or read docs. Helps to cover all the basics

Re: Cursor 3

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

the codex limits are actually pretty high too. You might want to check it out.

Agree with that, they seem really good limits for daily use on something like Chat GPT Pro $20 account. I'm in the curious situation of using the Codex CLI within Cursor IDE and not really getting value out of my $60 Cursor sub. Plus at every update it seems Cursor seems to break more of their UI in the 'not a cloud agent chat UI' vs the more traditional VSCode sort of layout of code first. I should probably cancel.

Re: Cursor 3

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 s…

Yes, also doesn't work for me. If the changes are simple, it is fine but if the changes are complex and there isn't a clear guideline then there is no AI that is good enough or even close to it. Gives you a few days of feeling productive and then weeks of trying to tidy up the mess.

Also, I have noticed, strangely, that Claude is noticeably less compliant than GPT. If you ask a question, it will answer and then try to immediately make changes (which may not be related). If you say something isn't working, it will challenge you and it was tested (it wasn't). For a company that is seems to focus so much on ethics, they have produced an LLM that displays a clear disregard for users (perhaps that isn't a surprise). Either way, it is a very bad model for "agent swarm" style coding. I have been through this extensively but it will write bad code that doesn't work in a subtle way, it will tell that it works and that the issues relate to the way you are using the program, and then it will do the same thing five minutes later.

The tooling in this area is very good. The problem is that the AI cannot be trusted to write complex code. Imo, the future is something like Cerbaras Code that offers a speed up for single-threaded work. In most cases, I am just being lazy...I know what I want to write, I don't need the AI to do it, and I am seeing that I am faster if I just single-thread it.

Only counterpoint to this is that swarms are good for long-running admin, housekeeping, etc. Nowhere near what has been promised but not terrible.

Re: Cursor 3

#206

I don't understand how this product can be productively useful. It looks like any other AI chat bot, but I remember hearing people speak very positive things about it. What am I missing?

You're missing nothing with this new ui. For me very good autocomplete + stuff than can be automated with an agent on the side while coding on the other was the peak. I want the control, control to activate/disable autocomplete and agents, I don't want to follow an imposed workflow

Re: Cursor 3

#207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, it’s stuff like this making me think maybe the anti capitalists have a point. A company makes a popular product customers like, but to satisfy the VCs the company must make a product the customers don’t like but could make the VCs more money. Not sure this is the “invisible hand” Adam Smith had in mind.

In order to make more money you have to make a product customers want.

No, just a product they'll pay for

Re: Cursor 3

#208
post #48
post #43

Looks like they're now playing catchup. What's the pitch for using Cursor now a days?

Good autocomplete for those of us who still write code.

Me too, I have the bad feeling autocomplete will be sunsetted sooner or later, it clearly isn't the path they're getting into. Also it started to get worse lately, it tries too hard to predict, it wasn't like that some time ago, hopefully you know what I'm saying

Re: Cursor 3

#209

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…

vscode + claude code extension has everything you listed that actually matters

Re: Cursor 3

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are still speaking in the lower abstraction in terms of zwaps' provided understanding. "Tagging specific code" or "files" is likely the type of interfacing most Claude Code users are _not_ doing. Instead they are defining architecture through specs and verification-loops and attempting to one-shot solutions fitting clear tests. On reflection, I personally don't have many prompts with CC referencing files…

So that sounds like Claude Code is an inferior subset of Cursor. That Cursor can work like Claude Code, but Claude Code is lacking Cursor’s editing capabilities.

If you install the VS Code plugin, it's the same editing functionality. Cursor lacks a lot of the tooling in claude code that makes the experience a lot more... solid.
Post reply on HN