3 ms·
Claude is just better at coding than cursor. Really, the interface isn't a meaningful part of it. I also like cmd-L, but claude just does better at writing cod
by noodletheworld 1y ago
Claude is just better at coding than cursor.
Really, the interface isn't a meaningful part of it. I also like cmd-L, but claude just does better at writing code.
...also, it's nice that Anthropic is just focusing on making cool stuff (like skills), while the folk from cursor are... I dunno. Whatever it is they're doing with cursor 2.0 :shrug:
- smokel 1y agoCursor can use the Claude Sonnet and Claude Opus LLMs, so I would expect output to be quite similar in that respect. The agentic part of the equation is improving on both sides all the time.
- ta988 1y agoClaude Code is much more efficient even compared to Cursor using the Anthropic models. The planning and tool use is much better.
- cmrdporcupine 1y agoThere's something in the prompting, tooling, heuristics inside the Claude Code CLI itself that makes it more than just the model it's talking to and that becomes clear if you point your ANTROPHIC_URL at another model. The results are often almost equivalent. Whereas I tried Kilo Code and CoPilot and JetBrain's agent and others direct against Sonnet 4 and the output was ... not good ... in comparison. I have my criticisms of Claude but still find it very impressive.