Live data from Hacker News

Cursor 3

cursor.com

241–250 of 438 posts

Re: Cursor 3

#241

I find a lot of these IDEs are simply not as useful as a CLI. When I'm running a full agentic workflow, I don't really need to see the contents of the files at all time, I'd actually say I often don't need to at all, because I can't really understand 10k lines of code per hour.

On the face of it, "10k lines of code per hour" sounds like a ridiculous metric to the point of parody.

Re: Cursor 3

#243
post #169

I used to have a pro-cursor subscription, but it was way too expensive because I'd always hit my limit. I realized I could just use claude code + the free version of cursor for autocomplete and it worked even better. At this point, I'm not understanding the value that cursor is bringing. A souped up claude code? All I have to do is wait a few months and anything useful will be in claude code or codex or whatever.

So unfortunately this is it for me too. I liked Cursor as a tool, but when i switched to Claude I realized i was getting WAY better value for money. I spent $1800 the month before, i spent $200 the next.

I'm now switching between Claude and Codex for less than 1/4 of what I was spending in December.

Re: Cursor 3

#245
imo there’s a clear greenfield to have doubled down on where cursor was before in proactively keeping devs appraised of the code that they’re generating, and bridging growing gaps between abstracted chat sessions and files/directory structures I might understand less and less

This on the other hand feels like a clear reaction to cc/codex, in a way that even kind of builds an offboarding ramp?

Re: Cursor 3

#246
Cursor has been my main AI tool for over a year now.

I've been trying to use Claude Code seriously for over a month, but every time I do it, I get the impression that it would take me less work to do with Cursor.

I'm on the enterprise plan, so it can get pricey. This is why I used to stick mostly to auto mode.

Now Composer 2 has taken over as my default model. It is not as intelligent as OpenAI's or Anthropic's flagship models, but I feel it has as good as or better intuition. With way better pricing. It can get stuck in more complex tasks though.

Being able to get in the loop, stop and instruct or change models makes all the difference. And that is why I've stayed in the editor mode until now. Let's see if 3.0 changes that.

Re: Cursor 3

#247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I have zero interest in these new "swarms of agents" I think you misunderstand "swarms of agents", based on what you say above. An agent swarm, in my understanding and checked via a google search, does not imply working on multiple features at one time. It is working on one feature with multiple agents taking different roles on that task. Like maybe a python expert, a code simplifier, a UI/UX expert, a QA tester, an…

> does not imply working on multiple features at one time. How can multiple parallel agents some local and some in the cloud be working on a single task? How can: > All local and cloud agents appear in the sidebar, including the ones you kick off from mobile, web, desktop, Slack, GitHub, and Linear. (From the announcement, under “Run many agents in parallel”) …be working on the same task? Subagents are different, but…

They are confused in the word they use: the article on what Cursor is pushing does not, according to ^F, mention "swarm" at all. Since we have a word for multiple agents working on one task, it is probably best not to use that word if you are referring to multiple agents working on multiple tasks, right?

I bring it up not to be pedantic, but because if you think it implies multi-tasking and dismiss it, you are missing out on it's ability to help in single-tasking.

Re: Cursor 3

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I have zero interest in these new "swarms of agents" I think you misunderstand "swarms of agents", based on what you say above. An agent swarm, in my understanding and checked via a google search, does not imply working on multiple features at one time. It is working on one feature with multiple agents taking different roles on that task. Like maybe a python expert, a code simplifier, a UI/UX expert, a QA tester, an…

> does not imply working on multiple features at one time. How can multiple parallel agents some local and some in the cloud be working on a single task? How can: > All local and cloud agents appear in the sidebar, including the ones you kick off from mobile, web, desktop, Slack, GitHub, and Linear. (From the announcement, under “Run many agents in parallel”) …be working on the same task? Subagents are different, but…

Subagents are isolated context windows, which means they cannot get polluted as easily with garbage from the main thread. You can have multiple of them running in parallel doing their own separate things in service of whatever your own “brain thread”… it’s handy because one might be exploring some aspect of what you are working on while another is looking at it from a different perspective.

I think the people doing multiple brain threads at once are doing that because the damn tools are so fucking slow. Give it little while and I’m sure these things will take significantly less time to generate tokens. So much so that brand new bottlenecks will open up…

Re: Cursor 3

#250
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI labs think they’re building an autonomous replacement for software engineers, while software engineers see these systems as tools to supplement the process of software engineering.

AI labs won't replace all of the engineers, while engineers becoming more productive, leads to smaller team sizes.

Smaller teams working on much more diverse set of problems.

The truth is absolutely nobody knows how this will all shake out.

Post reply on HN