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

51–60 of 438 posts

Re: Cursor 3

#51

Post by verdverm »

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…

Why I harp on owning your stack instead of outsourcing your Ai experience and interface to Big Ai. There are many frameworks that make this much easier today. I chose ADK which is more of a lift, but also works for non-coding use cases.

Re: Cursor 3

#52

Post by digitaltrees »

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…

[flagged]

Re: Cursor 3

#53

Post by simplyluke »

seamossfet wrote: post #46
wiradikusuma wrote: post #41

Maybe I'm old, but I only recently started using Gemini to assist me in coding. Now it seems everyone is heading to giving agents to do the full-blown coding. I guess if the result code is good, it doesn't matter who's coding (me or AI). But are they affordable already for developers who don't earn a Silicon Valley salary? Developers in 3rd world countries?

I'm not convinced people who are doing real work on production applications with any sizable user base is writing code through only agents. There's no way to get acceptable code from these models without really knowing your code base well and basically doing all the systems thinking for the model. Your workflow is probably closer to what most SWEs are actually doing.

This, at least for me, has changed in the past six months. Which is the same thing people were saying in the months prior to that, so I will accept some eye rolls. But at least for our pretty large monorepo opus + a lot of engineering work on context got us to a point where a large portion of our engineers are doing most of their work with agents first and a lot of back and forth + smaller hand edits.

Re: Cursor 3

#54

Post by Archonical »

adityamwagh wrote: post #50
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…

How would they make money from the tokens then haha? The main revenue driver of these companies is to get people to use more tokens. That’s what they will optimise for. Getting the developers out of the way is the way to do it.

Isn’t Cursor’s business model mostly subscriptions? They’re the ones paying for inference, not the user directly, right? So wouldn’t they be incentivized to minimize token usage per unit of user value, not maximize raw tokens?

Re: Cursor 3

#55

Post by dominotw »

emp17344 wrote: post #17
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…

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 think they’re building an autonomous replacement for software engineers

And management everywhere is convinced that thats what they are paying for. My company is replacing job titles with "builder". Apparently these tools will make builder out of paper pushers hiding in corporate beaurcarcy. I am suddenly same as them now per my company managment.

Re: Cursor 3

#56

Post by slopinthebag »

I really dislike this push away from augmentation and towards agents. I get that people want to be lazy and just have the LLM do all of their work, but using the AI as an augmentation means you are the driver and can prevent it from making mistakes, and you still have knowledge of the codebase. I think there is so much more we could be doing in the editor with AI, but instead every company just builds a chatbot. Sigh.

Re: Cursor 3

#57

Post by dominotw »

whicks wrote: post #14
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…

Agreed completely on this (as a heavy daily user of Cursor). It's been the perfect in-between of coding by hand (never again!) and strictly "vibe coding" for me. Being able to keep my eyes on all the changes in a "traditional" IDE view helps me maintain a mental model of how my systems work. I'm hoping in this new UI in v3 I can still get that experience (maybe it's just hidden behind a toggle somewhere for power use…

> It's been the perfect in-between of coding by hand (never again!) and strictly "vibe coding" for me.

I dont think there is an inbetween. Its really hard to 'keep an eye' on code by casually reading diffs. Eventually it will become vibe coding.

Software engineers are deluding themselves with spec driven, plans, prds whatever nonsense and thinking its not vibecoding.

Re: Cursor 3

#58

Post by moregrist »

adityamwagh wrote: post #50
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…

How would they make money from the tokens then haha? The main revenue driver of these companies is to get people to use more tokens. That’s what they will optimise for. Getting the developers out of the way is the way to do it.

Does Cursor make money from tokens?

I thought it was primarily a user of Anthropic and OpenAI APIs, so the fewer tokens you use to accomplish a task, the higher their margin.

Re: Cursor 3

#60

Post by guzfip »

tipsysquid wrote: post #35
vachina wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also Eclipse.

shudders does anyone pine for eclipes? I haven't used it in a decade, Im sure it has has evolved

My job replaced eclipse with VSCode for Java+Spring development.

Can’t say I miss eclipse, but a lot of the VSCode extensions seems to utilize old legacy eclipse stuff and has the bugs to match.

Post reply on HN