6 ms·

I've been running Claude Code in my Cursor IDE for a while now via extension. I like the setup, and I direct Claude on one task at a time, while still having fu

by nu11ptr 6mo ago

I've been running Claude Code in my Cursor IDE for a while now via extension. I like the setup, and I direct Claude on one task at a time, while still having full access to my code (and nice completions via Cursor). I still spend time tweaking, etc. before committing. I have zero interest in these new "swarms of agents" they are trying to force on us from every direction. I can barely keep straight my code working on one feature at a time. AI has greatly helped me speed that up, but working serially has resulted in the best quality for me. I'll likely drop Cursor for good now and switch back to vanilla VsCode with CC.

fragmede 6mo ago
> have zero interest in these new "swarms of agents" they are trying to force on us from every direction. Good for you! Personally waiting for one agent to do something while I shove my thumb up my butt just waiting around for it to generate code that I'll have to fix anyway is peak opposite of flow state, so I've eagerly adopted agents (how much free will I had in that decision is for philosophers to decide) so there's just more going on so I don't get bored. (Cue the inevitable accusations of me astroturfing or that this was written by AI. Ima delve into that one and tell there was not. Not unless you count me having stonks in the US stock market as being paid off by Big AI.)
- wilkystyle 6mo ago
  I have personally found that I cannot context switch between thinking deeply about two separate problems and workstreams without a significant cognitive context-switching cost. If it's context-switching between things that don't require super-deep thought, it's definitely doable, but I'm still way more mentally burnt-out after an hour or two of essentially speed-running review of small PRs from a bunch of different sources. Curious to know more about your work: Are your agents working on tangential problems? If so, how do you ensure you're still thinking at a sufficient level of depth and capacity about each problem each agent is working on? Or are they working on different threads of the same problem? If so, how do you keep them from stepping on each other's toes? People mention git worktrees, but that doesn't solve the conflict problem for multiple agents touching the same areas of functionality (i.e. you just move the conflict problem to the PR merge stage)
  - nprateem 6mo ago
    It's not that difficult. You get it to work on one deep problem, then another does more trivial bug fixes/optimizations, etc. Maybe in another you're architecting the next complex feature, another fixes tests, etc etc
  - simplyluke 6mo ago
    This is a struggle I've also been having. It's easier when I have 10 simple problems as a part of one larger initiative/project. Think like "we had these 10 minor bugs/tweaks we wanted to make after a demo review". I can keep that straight. A bunch of agents working in parallel makes me notably faster there though actually reviewing all the output is still the bottleneck. It's basically impossible when I'm working on multiple separate tasks that each require a lot of mental context. Two separate projects/products my team owns, two really hard technical problems, etc. This has been true before and after AI - big mental context switches are really expensive and people can't multitask despite how good we are at convincing ourselves we can. I expect a lot of folks experience here depends heavily on how much of their work is the former vs the later. I also expect that there's a lot of feeling busy while not actually moving much faster.
    - jwpapi 6mo ago
      Once I started agents and Claude code hid more and more of the changes it did from me it all went downhill..
    - girvo 6mo ago
      > I also expect that there's a lot of feeling busy while not actually moving much faster. Hey don’t say that too loudly, you’ll spook people. With less snark, this is absolutely true for a lot of the use I’m seeing. It’s notably faster if you’re doing greenfield from scratch work though.
  - jwpapi 6mo ago
    I tried swarms as well, but I came back to you as well. It’s not worth it even th e small worse description double-checking, fine-tuning is not worth the effort the worse code will cost me in the future. Also when I don’t know about it.
- nu11ptr 6mo ago
  > Personally waiting for one agent to do something while I shove my thumb up my butt just waiting around for it to generate code that I'll have to fix anyway I spend that time watching it think and then contemplating the problem further since often, as deep and elaborate as my prompts are, I've forgotten something. I suspect it might be different if you are building something like a CRUD app, but if you are building a very complicated piece of software, context switching to a new topic while it is working is pretty tough. It is pretty fast anyway and can write the amount of code I would normally write in half a day in like 15 minutes.
  - ryandrake 6mo ago
    In my workflow, it's totally interactive: Give the LLM some instructions, wait very briefly, look at code diff #1, correct/fix it before approving it, look at code diff #2, correct/fix it before approving it, sometimes hitting ESC and stopping the show because the agent needs to be course corrected... It's an active fight. No way I'm going to just "pre-approve all" and walk away to get coffee. The LLMs are not ready for that yet. I don't know how you'd manage a "swarm" of agents without pre-approving them all. When one has a diff, do you review it, and then another one comes in with an unrelated diff, and you context switch and approve that, then a third one comes in with a tool use it wants to do... That sounds absolutely exhausting.
    - jiggunjer 6mo ago
      It sounds like diff #2 depends on approval of diff #1? But with cursor it's a set of diffs that'll be retroactively approved or rejected one by one. So you can get coffee during the thinking and still have interactive checks. Swarm changes nothing about this, except affecting the thinking time.
- imiric 6mo ago
  I find it puzzling whenever someone claims to reach "flow" or "zen state" when using these tools. Reviewing and testing code, constantly switching contexts, juggling model contexts, coming up with prompt incantations to coax the model into the right direction, etc., is so mentally taxing and full of interruptions and micromanagement that it's practically impossible to achieve any sort of "flow" or "zen state". This is in no way comparable to the "flow" state that programmers sometimes achieve, which is reached when the person has a clear mental model of the program, understands all relevant context and APIs, and is able to easily translate their thoughts and program requirements into functional code. The reason why interrupting someone in this state is so disruptive is because it can take quite a while to reach it again. Working with LLMs is the complete opposite of this.
  - jwpapi 6mo ago
    Thank you so much. These comments let me believe in my sanity in an over-hyped world. I see how people think its more productive, but honestly I iterate on my code like 10-15 times before it goes into production, to make sure it logs the right things, it communicates intent clearly, the types are shared and defined where they should be. It’s stored in the right folder and so on. Whilst the laziness to just pass it to CC is there I feel more productive writing it on my own, because I go in small iterations. Especially when I need to test stuff. Let’s say I have to build an automated workflow and for step 1 alone I need to test error handling, max concurrency, set up idempotency, proper logging. Proper intent communication to my future self. Once I’m done I never have to worry about this specific code again (ok some error can be tricky to be fair), but often this function is just practically my thought and whenever i need it. This only works with good variable naming and also good spacing of a function. Nobody really talks about it, but if a very unimportant part takes a lot of space in a service it should be probably refactored into a smaller service. The goal is to have a function that I probably never have to look again and if I have to do it answers me as fast as possible all the questions my future self would ask when he’s forgotten what decisions needed to be made or how the external parts are working. When it breaks I know what went wrong and when I run it in an orchestration I have the right amount of feedback. As others I could go very long about that and I’m aware of the other side of the coin overengineering, but I just feel that having solid composable units is just actually enabling to later build features and functionality that might be moat. Slow, flaky units aren’t less likely to become an asset.. And even if I let AI draft the initial flow, honestly the review will never be as good as the step by step stuff I built. I have to say AI is great to improve you as a developer to double check you, to answer (broad questions), before it gets to detailed and you need to experiment or read docs. Helps to cover all the basics
- Aurornis 6mo ago
  For my work I’ve never found myself sitting around with nothing to do because there’s always so much review of the generated code that needs to be done The only way I can imagine needing to run multiple agents in parallel for code gen is if I’m just not reviewing the output. I’ve done some throwaway projects where I can work like that, but I’ve reviewed so much LLM generated code that there is no way I’m going to be having LLMs generate code and just merge it with a quick review on projects that matter. I treat it like pair programming where my pair programmer doesn’t care when I throw away their work
- whackernews 6mo ago
  Why is this comment so pale I cat read it? What’s the contrast on this is this accessible to anyone? I’m guessing it was downvoted by the masses but at the same time I’d like the choice to be able to read it I’m not that into what the general public think about something. I’m getting into downmaxxing at this point. I love that you have to earn being negative on this site. Give it to me.
  - zargon 6mo ago
    Click on the timestamp link to go to the comment's own page where it will be rendered black instead of gray.
    - bornfreddy 6mo ago
      Except it isn't (anymore)? Timestamp + reader mode worked though. Edit: it is black if logged in, gray if logged out. Weird.
linsomniac 6mo ago
>I have zero interest in these new "swarms of agents" I think you misunderstand "swarms of agents", based on what you say above. An agent swarm, in my understanding and checked via a google search, does not imply working on multiple features at one time. It is working on one feature with multiple agents taking different roles on that task. Like maybe a python expert, a code simplifier, a UI/UX expert, a QA tester, and a devils advocate working together to implement a feature.
- noodletheworld 6mo ago
  > does not imply working on multiple features at one time. How can multiple parallel agents some local and some in the cloud be working on a single task? How can: > All local and cloud agents appear in the sidebar, including the ones you kick off from mobile, web, desktop, Slack, GitHub, and Linear. (From the announcement, under “Run many agents in parallel”) …be working on the same task? Subagents are different, but the OP is not confused about what cursor is pushing, and it is not what you describe.
  - linsomniac 6mo ago
    They are confused in the word they use: the article on what Cursor is pushing does not, according to ^F, mention "swarm" at all. Since we have a word for multiple agents working on one task, it is probably best not to use that word if you are referring to multiple agents working on multiple tasks, right? I bring it up not to be pedantic, but because if you think it implies multi-tasking and dismiss it, you are missing out on it's ability to help in single-tasking.
    - jiggunjer 6mo ago
      I think cursor doesn't make distinction between single or multiple logical tasks for swarm-like workloads. Subagents is the word they use for the swarm workers. Fwiw when I select multiple models for a prompt it just feeds the same prompt to them in parallel (isolated worktrees), this isn't the same as the swarm pattern in 2.4+ (default no worktrees).
    - 6mo ago
dirtbag__dad 6mo ago
This. I have effectively used multiple agents to do large refactors. I have not used them for greenfield development. How are folks leveraging the agentic swarm, and how are you managing code quality and governance? Does anyone know of a site that highlights code, features, or products produced by this type of development?
- justindz 6mo ago
  I think it would be fantastic to have a reference site for significant, complex projects either developed or substantially extended primarily via agent(s). Every time I look at someone's incredible example of a workflow for handling big context projects, it ends up being a greenfield static microblog example with vague, arm-wavey assertions that it will definitely scale.
- neuzhou 6mo ago
  [flagged]
wazHFsRy 6mo ago
I just wish Claude code would also offer fast inline auto complete. Sometimes I’ll just want to have a function definition or some boilerplate spelled out without waiting for the slow Claude response. Or actively switching models. ——- Maybe I can set up a shortcut for that?
- Gagarin1917 6mo ago
  Is there a significant difference between Claude Code in VSCode and Copilot in VSCode? I’ve been using Copilot with the Claude models (including Sonnet/Opus 4.6) and it seems to work spectacularly. My subscription is only $10 a month, and it has unlimited inline suggestions. I just wonder if I’m missing anything.
  - wazHFsRy 6mo ago
    I tried copilot for a bit in vscode as well with opus and felt something was off. Somehow as if copilots harness around it just wasn’t as good. But I can’t give solid prove.
    - Mashimo 6mo ago
      Can't you use the official claude code vs plugin? AFAIK it uses the same binary as the cli in the background.
      - wazHFsRy 6mo ago
        Yes and I do. My above point was just that I’d like to have fast inline auto complete.
  - thefounder 6mo ago
    Copilot just sucks . I’ve tried them both and I stick with cc and codex mcp
  - mmplxx 6mo ago
    The $10/month plan offers a quite limited number of tokens for advanced models. And if you are not careful and set the model to Auto it will quickly deplete them.
kaizenb 6mo ago
Same here. Tried agent system but no. One feature. One conversation.
nevir 6mo ago
Same here. And just recently made the switch back to VS Code with CC Also means you don't have to deal with Cursor's busted VS Code plugins due to licensing or forking drift (e.g. Python intellisence, etc)
Rover222 6mo ago
This flow feels so slow after switching to Conductor and running X number of tasks in separate git workspaces concurrently
- treetopia 6mo ago
  Have you tried Devswarm.ai yet? It's similar but can use VS Code workflows.
  - Rover222 6mo ago
    I'll check it out, thanks
ifightcrime 6mo ago
You are falling behind if you're not pushing yourself to learn and get better orchestrating multiple agents.
- breakpointalpha 6mo ago
  Why is it that every legitimate concern or downside pointed out about AI is met with the same tired, low signal, rebuttal of FOMO. It's become the "no u r" argument of the AI age... :/
  - kdicjsjvjsjxh 6mo ago
    Because the AI apologists cannot deal with the much studied and proven placebo effect of perceived increased productivity, so they have to try and make themselves feel better by claiming that others are lagging behind in a race no one else is really interesting in running. A snake oil scheme if ever saw one.
mtrifonov 6mo ago
Same setup here. Claude Code in the terminal, one task at a time. The swarm thing never clicked for me. When I'm building I need to hold the full context in my head, and watching the agent work is actually part of that. I catch things I missed in my own prompt while it's thinking. Parallelizing that would just mean reviewing code I have no mental model for. Serial is slower on paper but the code actually works at the end. I think these products are trying to capture no-coders, which is a recipe for disaster. They're trying to create architectures so people can say "build me X" and the agents perform magic end-to-end, output a hot pile of garbage. The actual value here is taking the finger-to-keyboard burden off the user and abstracting up to architect level. That means you still need to be able to review the goddamn code and offer an opinion on it to end up with something good. AI slop comes from people who don't have the skills and context to offer any valuable opinion or pushback to the AI. Vanilla CC is the best IMO.
agilek 6mo ago
Try Zed instead of VSC. Thank me later.
- nu11ptr 6mo ago
  I did, but having the buttons on the bottom vs the side is a deal breaker for me, esp. since they are VERY tiny on my 4K screen. I can barely even get my mouse over them, and it seems they aren't movable to the left side like VSC? Am I missing something? Hard to believe this shipped, it is unusable for me.
archon810 6mo ago
You don't have to use swarms if you don't need them though, and in fact you can continue using the editor view with the side chat like before. Why switch away now just because this optional UI was announced?

by nu11ptr 6mo ago

fragmede 6mo ago

> have zero interest in these new "swarms of agents" they are trying to force on us from every direction. Good for you! Personally waiting for one agent to do something while I shove my thumb up my butt just waiting around for it to generate code that I'll have to fix anyway is peak opposite of flow state, so I've eagerly adopted agents (how much free will I had in that decision is for philosophers to decide) so there's just more going on so I don't get bored. (Cue the inevitable accusations of me astroturfing or that this was written by AI. Ima delve into that one and tell there was not. Not unless you count me having stonks in the US stock market as being paid off by Big AI.)

wilkystyle 6mo ago
I have personally found that I cannot context switch between thinking deeply about two separate problems and workstreams without a significant cognitive context-switching cost. If it's context-switching between things that don't require super-deep thought, it's definitely doable, but I'm still way more mentally burnt-out after an hour or two of essentially speed-running review of small PRs from a bunch of different sources. Curious to know more about your work: Are your agents working on tangential problems? If so, how do you ensure you're still thinking at a sufficient level of depth and capacity about each problem each agent is working on? Or are they working on different threads of the same problem? If so, how do you keep them from stepping on each other's toes? People mention git worktrees, but that doesn't solve the conflict problem for multiple agents touching the same areas of functionality (i.e. you just move the conflict problem to the PR merge stage)
- nprateem 6mo ago
  It's not that difficult. You get it to work on one deep problem, then another does more trivial bug fixes/optimizations, etc. Maybe in another you're architecting the next complex feature, another fixes tests, etc etc
- simplyluke 6mo ago
  This is a struggle I've also been having. It's easier when I have 10 simple problems as a part of one larger initiative/project. Think like "we had these 10 minor bugs/tweaks we wanted to make after a demo review". I can keep that straight. A bunch of agents working in parallel makes me notably faster there though actually reviewing all the output is still the bottleneck. It's basically impossible when I'm working on multiple separate tasks that each require a lot of mental context. Two separate projects/products my team owns, two really hard technical problems, etc. This has been true before and after AI - big mental context switches are really expensive and people can't multitask despite how good we are at convincing ourselves we can. I expect a lot of folks experience here depends heavily on how much of their work is the former vs the later. I also expect that there's a lot of feeling busy while not actually moving much faster.
  - jwpapi 6mo ago
    Once I started agents and Claude code hid more and more of the changes it did from me it all went downhill..
  - girvo 6mo ago
    > I also expect that there's a lot of feeling busy while not actually moving much faster. Hey don’t say that too loudly, you’ll spook people. With less snark, this is absolutely true for a lot of the use I’m seeing. It’s notably faster if you’re doing greenfield from scratch work though.
- jwpapi 6mo ago
  I tried swarms as well, but I came back to you as well. It’s not worth it even th e small worse description double-checking, fine-tuning is not worth the effort the worse code will cost me in the future. Also when I don’t know about it.
nu11ptr 6mo ago
> Personally waiting for one agent to do something while I shove my thumb up my butt just waiting around for it to generate code that I'll have to fix anyway I spend that time watching it think and then contemplating the problem further since often, as deep and elaborate as my prompts are, I've forgotten something. I suspect it might be different if you are building something like a CRUD app, but if you are building a very complicated piece of software, context switching to a new topic while it is working is pretty tough. It is pretty fast anyway and can write the amount of code I would normally write in half a day in like 15 minutes.
- ryandrake 6mo ago
  In my workflow, it's totally interactive: Give the LLM some instructions, wait very briefly, look at code diff #1, correct/fix it before approving it, look at code diff #2, correct/fix it before approving it, sometimes hitting ESC and stopping the show because the agent needs to be course corrected... It's an active fight. No way I'm going to just "pre-approve all" and walk away to get coffee. The LLMs are not ready for that yet. I don't know how you'd manage a "swarm" of agents without pre-approving them all. When one has a diff, do you review it, and then another one comes in with an unrelated diff, and you context switch and approve that, then a third one comes in with a tool use it wants to do... That sounds absolutely exhausting.
  - jiggunjer 6mo ago
    It sounds like diff #2 depends on approval of diff #1? But with cursor it's a set of diffs that'll be retroactively approved or rejected one by one. So you can get coffee during the thinking and still have interactive checks. Swarm changes nothing about this, except affecting the thinking time.
imiric 6mo ago
I find it puzzling whenever someone claims to reach "flow" or "zen state" when using these tools. Reviewing and testing code, constantly switching contexts, juggling model contexts, coming up with prompt incantations to coax the model into the right direction, etc., is so mentally taxing and full of interruptions and micromanagement that it's practically impossible to achieve any sort of "flow" or "zen state". This is in no way comparable to the "flow" state that programmers sometimes achieve, which is reached when the person has a clear mental model of the program, understands all relevant context and APIs, and is able to easily translate their thoughts and program requirements into functional code. The reason why interrupting someone in this state is so disruptive is because it can take quite a while to reach it again. Working with LLMs is the complete opposite of this.
- jwpapi 6mo ago
  Thank you so much. These comments let me believe in my sanity in an over-hyped world. I see how people think its more productive, but honestly I iterate on my code like 10-15 times before it goes into production, to make sure it logs the right things, it communicates intent clearly, the types are shared and defined where they should be. It’s stored in the right folder and so on. Whilst the laziness to just pass it to CC is there I feel more productive writing it on my own, because I go in small iterations. Especially when I need to test stuff. Let’s say I have to build an automated workflow and for step 1 alone I need to test error handling, max concurrency, set up idempotency, proper logging. Proper intent communication to my future self. Once I’m done I never have to worry about this specific code again (ok some error can be tricky to be fair), but often this function is just practically my thought and whenever i need it. This only works with good variable naming and also good spacing of a function. Nobody really talks about it, but if a very unimportant part takes a lot of space in a service it should be probably refactored into a smaller service. The goal is to have a function that I probably never have to look again and if I have to do it answers me as fast as possible all the questions my future self would ask when he’s forgotten what decisions needed to be made or how the external parts are working. When it breaks I know what went wrong and when I run it in an orchestration I have the right amount of feedback. As others I could go very long about that and I’m aware of the other side of the coin overengineering, but I just feel that having solid composable units is just actually enabling to later build features and functionality that might be moat. Slow, flaky units aren’t less likely to become an asset.. And even if I let AI draft the initial flow, honestly the review will never be as good as the step by step stuff I built. I have to say AI is great to improve you as a developer to double check you, to answer (broad questions), before it gets to detailed and you need to experiment or read docs. Helps to cover all the basics
Aurornis 6mo ago
For my work I’ve never found myself sitting around with nothing to do because there’s always so much review of the generated code that needs to be done The only way I can imagine needing to run multiple agents in parallel for code gen is if I’m just not reviewing the output. I’ve done some throwaway projects where I can work like that, but I’ve reviewed so much LLM generated code that there is no way I’m going to be having LLMs generate code and just merge it with a quick review on projects that matter. I treat it like pair programming where my pair programmer doesn’t care when I throw away their work
whackernews 6mo ago
Why is this comment so pale I cat read it? What’s the contrast on this is this accessible to anyone? I’m guessing it was downvoted by the masses but at the same time I’d like the choice to be able to read it I’m not that into what the general public think about something. I’m getting into downmaxxing at this point. I love that you have to earn being negative on this site. Give it to me.
- zargon 6mo ago
  Click on the timestamp link to go to the comment's own page where it will be rendered black instead of gray.
  - bornfreddy 6mo ago
    Except it isn't (anymore)? Timestamp + reader mode worked though. Edit: it is black if logged in, gray if logged out. Weird.

linsomniac 6mo ago

>I have zero interest in these new "swarms of agents" I think you misunderstand "swarms of agents", based on what you say above. An agent swarm, in my understanding and checked via a google search, does not imply working on multiple features at one time. It is working on one feature with multiple agents taking different roles on that task. Like maybe a python expert, a code simplifier, a UI/UX expert, a QA tester, and a devils advocate working together to implement a feature.

noodletheworld 6mo ago
> does not imply working on multiple features at one time. How can multiple parallel agents some local and some in the cloud be working on a single task? How can: > All local and cloud agents appear in the sidebar, including the ones you kick off from mobile, web, desktop, Slack, GitHub, and Linear. (From the announcement, under “Run many agents in parallel”) …be working on the same task? Subagents are different, but the OP is not confused about what cursor is pushing, and it is not what you describe.
- linsomniac 6mo ago
  They are confused in the word they use: the article on what Cursor is pushing does not, according to ^F, mention "swarm" at all. Since we have a word for multiple agents working on one task, it is probably best not to use that word if you are referring to multiple agents working on multiple tasks, right? I bring it up not to be pedantic, but because if you think it implies multi-tasking and dismiss it, you are missing out on it's ability to help in single-tasking.
  - jiggunjer 6mo ago
    I think cursor doesn't make distinction between single or multiple logical tasks for swarm-like workloads. Subagents is the word they use for the swarm workers. Fwiw when I select multiple models for a prompt it just feeds the same prompt to them in parallel (isolated worktrees), this isn't the same as the swarm pattern in 2.4+ (default no worktrees).
  - 6mo ago

dirtbag__dad 6mo ago

This. I have effectively used multiple agents to do large refactors. I have not used them for greenfield development. How are folks leveraging the agentic swarm, and how are you managing code quality and governance? Does anyone know of a site that highlights code, features, or products produced by this type of development?

justindz 6mo ago
I think it would be fantastic to have a reference site for significant, complex projects either developed or substantially extended primarily via agent(s). Every time I look at someone's incredible example of a workflow for handling big context projects, it ends up being a greenfield static microblog example with vague, arm-wavey assertions that it will definitely scale.
neuzhou 6mo ago
[flagged]

wazHFsRy 6mo ago

I just wish Claude code would also offer fast inline auto complete. Sometimes I’ll just want to have a function definition or some boilerplate spelled out without waiting for the slow Claude response. Or actively switching models. ——- Maybe I can set up a shortcut for that?

Gagarin1917 6mo ago
Is there a significant difference between Claude Code in VSCode and Copilot in VSCode? I’ve been using Copilot with the Claude models (including Sonnet/Opus 4.6) and it seems to work spectacularly. My subscription is only $10 a month, and it has unlimited inline suggestions. I just wonder if I’m missing anything.
- wazHFsRy 6mo ago
  I tried copilot for a bit in vscode as well with opus and felt something was off. Somehow as if copilots harness around it just wasn’t as good. But I can’t give solid prove.
  - Mashimo 6mo ago
    Can't you use the official claude code vs plugin? AFAIK it uses the same binary as the cli in the background.
    - wazHFsRy 6mo ago
      Yes and I do. My above point was just that I’d like to have fast inline auto complete.
- thefounder 6mo ago
  Copilot just sucks . I’ve tried them both and I stick with cc and codex mcp
- mmplxx 6mo ago
  The $10/month plan offers a quite limited number of tokens for advanced models. And if you are not careful and set the model to Auto it will quickly deplete them.

kaizenb 6mo ago

Same here. Tried agent system but no. One feature. One conversation.

nevir 6mo ago

Same here. And just recently made the switch back to VS Code with CC Also means you don't have to deal with Cursor's busted VS Code plugins due to licensing or forking drift (e.g. Python intellisence, etc)

Rover222 6mo ago

This flow feels so slow after switching to Conductor and running X number of tasks in separate git workspaces concurrently

treetopia 6mo ago
Have you tried Devswarm.ai yet? It's similar but can use VS Code workflows.
- Rover222 6mo ago
  I'll check it out, thanks

ifightcrime 6mo ago

You are falling behind if you're not pushing yourself to learn and get better orchestrating multiple agents.

breakpointalpha 6mo ago
Why is it that every legitimate concern or downside pointed out about AI is met with the same tired, low signal, rebuttal of FOMO. It's become the "no u r" argument of the AI age... :/
- kdicjsjvjsjxh 6mo ago
  Because the AI apologists cannot deal with the much studied and proven placebo effect of perceived increased productivity, so they have to try and make themselves feel better by claiming that others are lagging behind in a race no one else is really interesting in running. A snake oil scheme if ever saw one.

mtrifonov 6mo ago

Same setup here. Claude Code in the terminal, one task at a time. The swarm thing never clicked for me. When I'm building I need to hold the full context in my head, and watching the agent work is actually part of that. I catch things I missed in my own prompt while it's thinking. Parallelizing that would just mean reviewing code I have no mental model for. Serial is slower on paper but the code actually works at the end. I think these products are trying to capture no-coders, which is a recipe for disaster. They're trying to create architectures so people can say "build me X" and the agents perform magic end-to-end, output a hot pile of garbage. The actual value here is taking the finger-to-keyboard burden off the user and abstracting up to architect level. That means you still need to be able to review the goddamn code and offer an opinion on it to end up with something good. AI slop comes from people who don't have the skills and context to offer any valuable opinion or pushback to the AI. Vanilla CC is the best IMO.

agilek 6mo ago

Try Zed instead of VSC. Thank me later.

nu11ptr 6mo ago
I did, but having the buttons on the bottom vs the side is a deal breaker for me, esp. since they are VERY tiny on my 4K screen. I can barely even get my mouse over them, and it seems they aren't movable to the left side like VSC? Am I missing something? Hard to believe this shipped, it is unusable for me.

archon810 6mo ago

You don't have to use swarms if you don't need them though, and in fact you can continue using the editor view with the side chat like before. Why switch away now just because this optional UI was announced?