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

281–290 of 438 posts

Re: Cursor 3

#281

Post by brianjking »

synergy20 wrote: post #269
dirtbag__dad wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was a Cursor loyal until I was spending around $2k a week with premium models and my team had a discussion about whether we’d want to use more Cursor over hire another engineer. We unanimously agreed we’d rather hire another team member. I’m more productive than ever but I’m burning out. Anyway, as a result, I switched to Claude Code Max and I am equally as prolific and paying 1/10th the price. I get my cake and to…

long term claude code user here, never used cursor, however based on my limited experience, it seems codex can code better than claude code.

I've been using Codex since before ChatGPT (the OG version) and CC since launch. For me personally - Claude Code with Opus/Sonnet generally has better taste, more personality in interactions, and is more willing to just do the work. Paired with skills, LSPs, linters, and hooks, it works very well. I think of the two like this:

Claude Code with Opus/Sonnet is the L7 senior engineer still gunning for promotion. Hasn't hit burnout, hasn't been ground down by terrible teams yet. Capable and willing to get their hands dirty. Codex (the harness) with GPT-5.4 or 5.3-codex is fantastic but terse. Some of the UX frustrates me. I want a visual task list. That said, Codex as a harness is phenomenal. Think of it as the senior EM / CTO-in-waiting who won't write new code without complaining and nitpicking for hours. But they'll thoroughly tear your code apart and produce a plan you can execute yourself or pass to Claude Code.

Both are great, and so is Factory Droid. Also worth checking out Compound Engineering from Every.to if you haven't.

Re: Cursor 3

#282

Post by jiggunjer »

vially wrote: post #25

Thought I'd give it a try and installed the latest version. Application crashes at startup on Linux (Wayland) with: "The window terminated unexpectedly (reason: 'crashed', code: '139')". Probably yet another instance of developers mostly testing and doing quality assurance on macOS/Windows.

I'm running it ok arch Wayland (sway), installed last month I think. Maybe related to your electron package.

Re: Cursor 3

#283

Post by ok_dad »

zwaps wrote: post #251
mikestorrent wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like perhaps you haven't used Cursor. I use both CC and Cursor extensively and as far as I can tell there is nothing that the CC agent will do that Cursor won't do just as well (often using Opus as the backend) and at the same time I get the advantage of seeing the changes in a full IDE if I want to. Their new agent-forward UI hides the code if you don't want to see it as much, but I and many others think that…

Nobody is saying your workflow is wrong, it may even be better. However it is not how people use Claude Code or what its attraction is. What you mention as advantages and features is not something CC users use or require. On the other hand, Claude is trained on its harness (all but confirmed by Anthropic) so CC is likely just a bit better at its level of abstraction than in cursor. And at the end, you can’t yet best…

Cursor does the same stuff but better in my opinion. It’s got an IDE focus but whatever agent pipeline they built is better at coding than Claude’s is and much much faster. I routinely fear for my career while using Cursor, but when I use Claude I wonder what all the hype is about.

That’s not to say Claude sucks, but I think Cursor is really underrated and not well known. I think the IDE focus hurts them with non professional developers, but try using it the same as with Claude and you’ll be surprised, I bet. You can hook it up to GitHub and never touch the IDE if you want to.

Re: Cursor 3

#284

Post by jiggunjer »

linsomniac wrote: post #247
noodletheworld wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 missin…

I think cursor doesn't make distinction between single or multiple logical tasks for swarm-like workloads. Subagents is the word they use for the swarm workers.

Fwiw when I select multiple models for a prompt it just feeds the same prompt to them in parallel (isolated worktrees), this isn't the same as the swarm pattern in 2.4+ (default no worktrees).

Re: Cursor 3

#286

Post by vips7L »

linsomniac wrote: post #230
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…

>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…

They’re not experts.

Re: Cursor 3

#287

Post by zormino »

cedws wrote: post #116
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…

Yeah, this model where you don't get an editor anymore feels like a step backwards. I don't want to give up LSPs, being able to step into/rename functions and stuff like that. I should still be the one in control of the code - the agent is the assistant, not me. This is why Zed's direction felt pretty strong to me. Unfortunately their agentic features are kind of stagnating and the ACP extensions are riddled with iss…

This is why I use Claude Code though, it pairs well with a regular old text editor (in my case Sublime). I've always had an editor and a terminal open, plugging an AI into my terminal has been a fantastic enhancement to my work without really anything else changing or giving up any control.

Re: Cursor 3

#289

Post by Vivolab »

The identity confusion MeetingsBrowser describes is real, but I think there's a coherent product thesis underneath it: Cursor wants to be the surface where you interact with agents, not just the tool where you write code. The problem is that those two things require opposite UX philosophies. Agent-first needs ambient, background autonomy. Code-first needs precise, synchronous control. Trying to do both in one product means you're always making tradeoffs that frustrate one half of your users. Claude Code sidesteps this by not trying to be an IDE at all — it's just an orchestration layer you invoke from wherever you already work.

Re: Cursor 3

#290

Post by fulladder »

davnicwil wrote: post #67
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…

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…

It's heartbreaking to write this, but I think Cursor will be remembered as the Lotus 1-2-3 of AI coding.
Post reply on HN