Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

blog.silennai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 236 posts

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#91

Post by sksnzbz »

Regarding not reviewing the output: AI works great when you’re trying to sell it.

That being said, after seeing inside a couple YC backed SaaS companies I believe you can get by without reading the code. There are bugs _everywhere_, yet one of these companies made it years and sold. Currently going through the onerous process of fixing this as new company has a lot of interest in reducing the defect count. It is painful, difficult, and feeling like the company bought a lemon.

I think the reality is there’s a lot of money to be made with buggy software. But, there’s still plenty of money in making reliable software as well (I think?).

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#92

Post by xg15 »

asdff wrote: post #78
hollowturtle wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No there is no selection and no traits to pick, it's the culmination of research and human engineering. An airplan is a complex system that needs serious engineering. You can study birs but up till a certain point, if you like it go doing bird watching, but it's everything except engineering

>it's the culmination of research and human engineering. And how is this different than the process of natural selection? More fit ideas win out relative to less fit and are iterated upon.

By that logic, everything humans do is per definition result of natural selection. Everything is a sphere if you zoom out far enough.

However your starting definition was more limited. it was specifically about "creating candidates at random, then just picking the one that performs best" - and that's definitely not how airplanes are designed.

(It's not even how LLMs work, in fact)

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#93

Post by xg15 »

asdff wrote: post #86
hollowturtle wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all natural selection doesn't happen per se, nor is controlled by some inherent mechanism, it's the by product of many factors external and internal. So the comparison is just wrong. Human engineering is an interative process not a selection. And if we want to call it selection, even though it is a stretch, we're controlling it, we the master of puppets, natural selection is anything but a controlled process…

We do select for a more resistant wing. How did we determine that this wing is more resistant? We modeled its bending tolerance and selected this particular design against other designs that had worse evaluated results for bending tolerance.

First, how did we model the bending tolerance if everything is just randomness?

Second, there are other algorithms that constructively find a solution and don't work at all like genetic algorithms, such as mathematical solvers.

Third, sometimes, a design is also simply thought up by a human, based on their own professional skills and past experience.

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#94

Post by hollowturtle »

asdff wrote: post #86
hollowturtle wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all natural selection doesn't happen per se, nor is controlled by some inherent mechanism, it's the by product of many factors external and internal. So the comparison is just wrong. Human engineering is an interative process not a selection. And if we want to call it selection, even though it is a stretch, we're controlling it, we the master of puppets, natural selection is anything but a controlled process…

We do select for a more resistant wing. How did we determine that this wing is more resistant? We modeled its bending tolerance and selected this particular design against other designs that had worse evaluated results for bending tolerance.

And that, my friend, is just engineering, like I said above it's an iterative process. There is no "natural selection" from random shaped wings

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#95

Post by xg15 »

asdff wrote: post #77
jimbokun wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment strikes me as not having a good intuition for how fast the space of possible programs can grow.

You don't think the space of possible problems can be parsed with increased compute?

Not for all problems, definitly not. As an example of extremely fast-growing problem spaces, look at the Busy Beaver functions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#96

Post by hackingonempty »

ohyoutravel wrote: post #14
varispeed wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If AI can 10x then that's 50 years worth of development. Likely OP has developed a UNIX like operating system, is my guess.

I heard they created Plan10: An AI-files based Linux version.

Plan 10 from Latent Space

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#97

Post by weikju »

marstall wrote: post #4

I am still a WindSurf user. It has the quirk of deciding for itself on any given day whether to use ChatGPT 5.2 or Claude Opus 4.5 in Cascade (its agentic side panel). I've never noticed much of a difference, they are both amazing. I thought the difference must be in how Claude Code does the agentic stuff - reasoning with itself, looping until it finds an answer, etc. - but I have spent a fair amount of time with Cla…

Wondering too, I found Windsurf excellent for what it does, but do miss my preferred $EDITOR

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#99

Post by SilenN »

des429 wrote: post #7

This reads like a useful guide, not an answer to the question "why use Claude code over cursor" that the author includes at the beginning.

Any suggestions on what to add to answer the question better? I tried to cover this in "Why I switched", "When to use Cursor", and "My current setup" sections.

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#100

Post by SilenN »

tuckwat wrote: post #3

> You no longer need to review the code. Or instruct the model at the level of files or functions. You can test behaviors instead. Maybe for a personal project but this doesn't work in a multi-dev environment with paying customers. In my experience, paying attention to architecture and the code itself results in a much more pliable application that can be evolved.

Agree. And with the comments in the thread.

I'll caveat my statement, with AI ready repos. Meaning those with good documentation, good comments (ex. avoiding Chestertons fence), comprehensive interface tests, Sentry, CI/CD, etc.

Established repos are harder because a) the marginal cost of something going wrong is much higher b) there's more dependencies c) this makes it harder to 'comprehensively' ensure the AI didn't mess anything up

I say this in the article

> There's no "right answer." The only way to create your best system is to create it yourself by being in the loop. Best is biased by taste and experience. Experiment, iterate, and discover what works for you.

Try pushing the boundary. It's like figuring out the minimum amount of sleep you need. You undersleep and oversleep a couple times, but you end up with a good idea.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for canonical 'vibe coding'. Just that what it means to be a good engineer has changed again. 1) Being able to quickly create a mental map of code at the speed of changes, 2) debugging and refactoring 3) prompting, 4) and ensuring everything works (verifiability) are now the most valuable skills.

We should also focus more on the derivative than our point in time.

Post reply on HN