4 ms·
That's like saying an airplane has lower acceleration lol. It saves hours in copy-paste, and even if we're just talking boilerplate, it writes code throughout t
by muzani 2y ago
That's like saying an airplane has lower acceleration lol. It saves hours in copy-paste, and even if we're just talking boilerplate, it writes code throughout the screen, instead of just at the cursor (ironically).
It takes more than 2 seconds to figure out where to paste code and often longer to debug it if you try to do it below 2 seconds. Cursor just does this on a CMD+Enter.
It also runs GPT-4o and Claude, so the suggestions are much higher quality than Copilot.
- yaro-works 2y agoI'm a fan of Supermaven, and speed does make a difference. In our team, most of the devs switched to Supermaven after seeing how quickly and concisely it works. I used to work with Cursor, but after trying Supermaven, which has the largest context among any Copilots, I found it instantly reads the context of my project and suggests code in my project's style. From what I've found on their blog (https://www.cursor.com/blog/problems-2023 https://www.cursor.com/blog/problems-2023), Cursor's context is 500k tokens, which is much better than GitHub Copilot's 8k tokens, but still not a competitor for Supermaven's 1m tokens. So in the end, Supermaven learns from your project. The more you write, the more it actually matches your code style.
- mraza007 2y agoIf that’s the case I’m definitely going to try supermaven, I have been a cursor for past 3 months and I’m loving it so far but you are right at times it does get slow
- muzani 2y agoThanks, I tried Supermaven. I'd still rank it at second after Cursor. Supermaven seems to be a good fit for those who are into the flow. But I can't get any flow thanks to clean architecture, so Cursor works - it modifies the whole pipeline based on your feature.