5 ms·

I used to feel similarly. But recently started using Claude Code and it does feel a lot better than Cursor for me I'm not sure why. However, Claude does seem t

by nico 1y ago

I used to feel similarly. But recently started using Claude Code and it does feel a lot better than Cursor for me I'm not sure why. However, Claude does seem to know better where things are and knows not to make unnecessary changes. I still need to guide it and tell it to do things differently some times, but it feels like it's a lot more effective Personally, I also like that usually it just presents to me only one change/file at a time, so it's easier for me to review. Cursor might open several files at once, each with a tons of changes, which makes it a lot harder for me to understand quickly Btw, I use Claude Code in a terminal pane inside VSCode, with the extension. So Claude does open a file tab with proposed changes

ianberdin 1y ago
How can you prove you’re not a bot? I get the feeling I’ve seen a comment like this somewhere before. Tell us what you do—how, under what conditions, and in which programming languages. What exactly makes it better? Does it just search for files? Well, that’s hardly objective. So far the impression is… well, you say it only seems better. But you won’t get far with that kind of reasoning. Objectively, it now seems to me that Claude the cat is better, because everyone around says it’s better. Yet no one has actually explained why. So the hype is inflated out of thin air, and there are no objective reasons for it.
- Wowfunhappy 1y ago
  > How can you prove you’re not a bot? I get the feeling I’ve seen a comment like this somewhere before. ...you're replying to an account that was created in 2007. A bio is listed on the profile page. Maybe you feel you've seen this comment before because it's an opinion lots of people share? Even if you do not.
  - ianberdin 1y ago
    [flagged]
- mrtesthah 1y ago
  There isn’t some sort of conspiracy here, man. Anthropic gets paid either way.
Wowfunhappy 1y ago
> Personally, I also like that usually it just presents to me only one change/file at a time, so it's easier for me to review This is interesting. I haven't used Cursor, but one of my frustrations with Claude Code is that some of the individual changes it asks me to approve are too small for me to make a decision. There are cases where I almost denied a change initially, then realized Claude's approach made sense once I saw the full change set. Conversely, there are cases where I definitely should have stopped Claude earlier. It doesn't help that Claude usually describes its changes after it has made the full series, instead of before. ...really, what I'd like is an easy way to go back in time, wherein going back to an earlier point in the conversation also reverted the state of the code. I can and do simulate this with git to some extent, but I'd prefer it as a layer on top of git. I want to use git to track other things.
- nico 1y ago
  > some of the individual changes it asks me to approve are too small for me to make a decision. There are cases where I almost denied a change initially, then realized Claude's approach made sense once I saw the full change set Yes, I've adapted to just review quickly, then if it makes sense as part of the task, let it keep going until it's done with the whole thing. Most of the times, by the end it does the right thing I love that it doesn't auto-commit everything, ala aider, so it's pretty painless to undo stuff I also keep a TODO.md file with a plan of everything I want to do for the current ticket/PR. I tell CC to keep track of things there. CC takes stuff from there, breaks it down into its own subset of tasks and when finished I tell it to update the TODO.md with the progress. I also tell it to stage files and create commits The way I use it, it feels like I'm still programming, but I don't need to write code or run commands by myself, nor get stuck googling stuff up. I can just tell CC to do almost anything for me. It takes away the tediousness of what I want to accomplish
  - Wowfunhappy 1y ago
    > I love that it doesn't auto-commit everything, ala aider, so it's pretty painless to undo stuff. Yeah, I'm definitely glad it doesn't commit for me. The main issue I have is that I'm never sure how granular to make my commits. Sometimes I make them very granular because I'm experimenting with Claude and I want to be able to revert to any point in the conversation—but now I have to write a message each time to keep track of which is which. Conversely, when I don't make the commits as granular I loose the ability to roll back, and sometimes regret it. Also, sometimes Claude gets a bit too smart! Let's say I decide I want Claude to try again with a slightly different prompt. I save my current changes in a branch, roll back, to the previous state, and ask Claude to try again. Sometimes Claude will say "I see this is already implemented in the XX branch. Let me continue to build on that implementation."
varispeed 1y ago
I rarely had Cursor do unwanted changes for me. Maybe this is about prompting? I am very particular with what I want and I try to be as verbose as I can and explain the context as well plus hint which files I believe it should put attention to.

by nico 1y ago

ianberdin 1y ago

How can you prove you’re not a bot? I get the feeling I’ve seen a comment like this somewhere before. Tell us what you do—how, under what conditions, and in which programming languages. What exactly makes it better? Does it just search for files? Well, that’s hardly objective. So far the impression is… well, you say it only seems better. But you won’t get far with that kind of reasoning. Objectively, it now seems to me that Claude the cat is better, because everyone around says it’s better. Yet no one has actually explained why. So the hype is inflated out of thin air, and there are no objective reasons for it.

Wowfunhappy 1y ago
> How can you prove you’re not a bot? I get the feeling I’ve seen a comment like this somewhere before. ...you're replying to an account that was created in 2007. A bio is listed on the profile page. Maybe you feel you've seen this comment before because it's an opinion lots of people share? Even if you do not.
- ianberdin 1y ago
  [flagged]
mrtesthah 1y ago
There isn’t some sort of conspiracy here, man. Anthropic gets paid either way.

Wowfunhappy 1y ago

> Personally, I also like that usually it just presents to me only one change/file at a time, so it's easier for me to review This is interesting. I haven't used Cursor, but one of my frustrations with Claude Code is that some of the individual changes it asks me to approve are too small for me to make a decision. There are cases where I almost denied a change initially, then realized Claude's approach made sense once I saw the full change set. Conversely, there are cases where I definitely should have stopped Claude earlier. It doesn't help that Claude usually describes its changes after it has made the full series, instead of before. ...really, what I'd like is an easy way to go back in time, wherein going back to an earlier point in the conversation also reverted the state of the code. I can and do simulate this with git to some extent, but I'd prefer it as a layer on top of git. I want to use git to track other things.

nico 1y ago
> some of the individual changes it asks me to approve are too small for me to make a decision. There are cases where I almost denied a change initially, then realized Claude's approach made sense once I saw the full change set Yes, I've adapted to just review quickly, then if it makes sense as part of the task, let it keep going until it's done with the whole thing. Most of the times, by the end it does the right thing I love that it doesn't auto-commit everything, ala aider, so it's pretty painless to undo stuff I also keep a TODO.md file with a plan of everything I want to do for the current ticket/PR. I tell CC to keep track of things there. CC takes stuff from there, breaks it down into its own subset of tasks and when finished I tell it to update the TODO.md with the progress. I also tell it to stage files and create commits The way I use it, it feels like I'm still programming, but I don't need to write code or run commands by myself, nor get stuck googling stuff up. I can just tell CC to do almost anything for me. It takes away the tediousness of what I want to accomplish
- Wowfunhappy 1y ago
  > I love that it doesn't auto-commit everything, ala aider, so it's pretty painless to undo stuff. Yeah, I'm definitely glad it doesn't commit for me. The main issue I have is that I'm never sure how granular to make my commits. Sometimes I make them very granular because I'm experimenting with Claude and I want to be able to revert to any point in the conversation—but now I have to write a message each time to keep track of which is which. Conversely, when I don't make the commits as granular I loose the ability to roll back, and sometimes regret it. Also, sometimes Claude gets a bit too smart! Let's say I decide I want Claude to try again with a slightly different prompt. I save my current changes in a branch, roll back, to the previous state, and ask Claude to try again. Sometimes Claude will say "I see this is already implemented in the XX branch. Let me continue to build on that implementation."

varispeed 1y ago

I rarely had Cursor do unwanted changes for me. Maybe this is about prompting? I am very particular with what I want and I try to be as verbose as I can and explain the context as well plus hint which files I believe it should put attention to.