6 ms·
I totally agree on point 1. Being able to make piece wise, limited updates with AI was a sweet spot, but they keep pushing towards “ai changes hundreds of lines
by clickety_clack 1y ago
I totally agree on point 1. Being able to make piece wise, limited updates with AI was a sweet spot, but they keep pushing towards “ai changes hundreds of lines across dozens of files” type edits. I bought into cursor heavily from the off, and I’ve seen it create auth bypasses, duplicate component libraries and break ORM models. I know what I want to do, I just want it to happen faster and in a way I can control and direct, and that’s not the direction cursor seems to to be going.
I’ve actually gone back to neovim, copying in snippets from ChatGPT. I don’t think I’ve given up anything in speed.
- jrop 1y agoNeovim + Git + Aider seems to get close to perfection.
- tripplyons 1y agoI have tried similar workflows (Neovim + Opencode/Codex CLI), and for me, the biggest downside compared to Cursor is the lack of a tab completion model as good as Cursor's. Supermaven is the best one I've found so far for Neovim, but it gives worse suggestions and can only suggest changes on the same line you are on.
- clickety_clack 1y agoJust based on a few other comments here I tried supermaven and it works pretty well. You have to be on the line, but it’s better than GitHub copilot.
- causal 1y agoI do find the agents useful sometimes, but Cursor is most useful when it gives me visibility and granular control over what the agents are doing. Trying to follow a verbose narrative through a narrow chat pane is not it.