3 ms·

I feel like Cursor gives the same experience without having to be in the terminal. I don't see how Claude Code is so much better

by asdev 1y ago

mattmanser 1y ago
I went on n a bit of a YouTube frenzy last weekend on getting an overview of agentic tools. A lot of people are saying that cursor is much worse than Claude Code who have used both.
- CharlesW 1y ago
  Having spent a couple of weeks putting both AIDE-centric (Cursor, Windsurf) and CLI-centric (Claude Code, OpenAI Codex, Gemini CLI) options through real-world tasks, Cursor was one of the least effective tools for me. I ultimately settled on Claude Code and am very happy with it.
  - danielbln 1y ago
    I realized Claude Code is the abstraction level I want to work in. Cursor et al still stick me way down into the code muck when really I only want to see the code during review. It's an implementation detail that I still have to review because it's makes mistakes, even when guided perfectly, but otherwise I want to think in interfaces, architecture, components. The low level code, don't care. Is it up to spec and conventions, does it work? Good enough for me.
maouida 1y ago
I use neovim so claude code makes more sense to me. I think having the code agent independent from the code editor is a plus.
Aurornis 1y ago
I haven’t found massive performance between tools that use the same underlying LLM The benefit of Claude Code is that you can pay a fixed monthly fee and get a lot more than you would with API requests alone.
- fuzzzerd 1y ago
  That has not been my experience, Copilot using Claude is way different than claude code for me. Anecdotal, and "vibes" based, but it'd what I've been experiencing.
MattGaiser 1y ago
I put Cursor as 4th of the tools I have tried. Claude Code, Junie, and Copilot all do work that I find much more acceptable.
lukaslalinsky 1y ago
I really don't know what is it, but Claude Code just seems like an extremely well tuned package. You can have the same core models, but the internal prompts matter, how they are looking up extra context matters, how easy is it to add external context matters, how it applies changes matters, how eager is it to actually use an external tool to help you matters. With Claude Code, it just feels right. When I say I want a review, I get a review, when I want code, I get code, when I want just some git housekeeping, I get that.
mapme 1y ago
The native tool use is a game changer. When I ask it to debug something it can independently add debug logging to a method, run the tests, collect the output, and code based off that until the tests are fixed.
kelnos 1y ago
I use vim for most of my development, so I'm always in a terminal anyway. I like my editor setup, and getting the benefits of a coding assistant without having to drastically change my editor has huge value to me.

I feel like Cursor gives the same experience without having to be in the terminal. I don't see how Claude Code is so much better

by asdev 1y ago

I feel like Cursor gives the same experience without having to be in the terminal. I don't see how Claude Code is so much better

mattmanser 1y ago

I went on n a bit of a YouTube frenzy last weekend on getting an overview of agentic tools. A lot of people are saying that cursor is much worse than Claude Code who have used both.

CharlesW 1y ago
Having spent a couple of weeks putting both AIDE-centric (Cursor, Windsurf) and CLI-centric (Claude Code, OpenAI Codex, Gemini CLI) options through real-world tasks, Cursor was one of the least effective tools for me. I ultimately settled on Claude Code and am very happy with it.
- danielbln 1y ago
  I realized Claude Code is the abstraction level I want to work in. Cursor et al still stick me way down into the code muck when really I only want to see the code during review. It's an implementation detail that I still have to review because it's makes mistakes, even when guided perfectly, but otherwise I want to think in interfaces, architecture, components. The low level code, don't care. Is it up to spec and conventions, does it work? Good enough for me.

maouida 1y ago

I use neovim so claude code makes more sense to me. I think having the code agent independent from the code editor is a plus.

Aurornis 1y ago

I haven’t found massive performance between tools that use the same underlying LLM The benefit of Claude Code is that you can pay a fixed monthly fee and get a lot more than you would with API requests alone.

fuzzzerd 1y ago
That has not been my experience, Copilot using Claude is way different than claude code for me. Anecdotal, and "vibes" based, but it'd what I've been experiencing.

MattGaiser 1y ago

I put Cursor as 4th of the tools I have tried. Claude Code, Junie, and Copilot all do work that I find much more acceptable.

lukaslalinsky 1y ago

I really don't know what is it, but Claude Code just seems like an extremely well tuned package. You can have the same core models, but the internal prompts matter, how they are looking up extra context matters, how easy is it to add external context matters, how it applies changes matters, how eager is it to actually use an external tool to help you matters. With Claude Code, it just feels right. When I say I want a review, I get a review, when I want code, I get code, when I want just some git housekeeping, I get that.

mapme 1y ago

The native tool use is a game changer. When I ask it to debug something it can independently add debug logging to a method, run the tests, collect the output, and code based off that until the tests are fixed.

kelnos 1y ago

I use vim for most of my development, so I'm always in a terminal anyway. I like my editor setup, and getting the benefits of a coding assistant without having to drastically change my editor has huge value to me.