undefined | Better HN

0 pointszwaps2mo ago0 comments

Claude Code is where you move up one abstraction layer. Almost everyone using it productively has spend a lot of time working on their harness, ensuring that everything is planned out and structured such that all that is left is really type in the code. This typically works without error. Before that, you interact a lot via Claude Code in whatever abstraction you feel is right.

That's basically it. You can review changes afterwards, but that's not the main point of Claude Code. It's a different workflow. It's built on the premise: given a tight and verifiable plan, AI will execute the actual coding correctly. This will work, mostly, if you use the very best models with a very good and very specific harness.

Cursor, same as Copilot, has been used by people who are basically pair programming with the AI. So, on abstraction down.

I have no idea what is better, or faster. I suspect it depends at least on the problem, the AI, and the person.

0 comments

6 comments · 1 top-level

ninininino2mo ago· 5 in thread

> Cursor, same as Copilot, has been used by people who are basically pair programming with the AI. So, on abstraction down.

This is not really true anymore.

Cursor has better cloud agents than Claude. The multi-agent experience is better, the worktree management is better. Tagging specific code or files in chat is better.

It's hard for me to express the level of pain and frustration I feel going from Cursor to Claude / Conductor+Claude / Claude Extension for VS Code, Claude in Zed, etc.

Really hoping Claude puts more energy into Cowork as a competitor for Cursor and Codex.

dugidugout2mo ago

I think you are still speaking in the lower abstraction in terms of zwaps' provided understanding. "Tagging specific code" or "files" is likely the type of interfacing most Claude Code users are _not_ doing.

Instead they are defining architecture through specs and verification-loops and attempting to one-shot solutions fitting clear tests. On reflection, I personally don't have many prompts with CC referencing files or code directly, rather I speak in specifications I can then track to a given instance of work in review.

This isn't to suggest you can't work at this abstraction in cursor or w/e interface, but the features you suggest are hardly relevant to the divide zwaps is identifying.

mikestorrent2mo ago

I feel like perhaps you haven't used Cursor. I use both CC and Cursor extensively and as far as I can tell there is nothing that the CC agent will do that Cursor won't do just as well (often using Opus as the backend) and at the same time I get the advantage of seeing the changes in a full IDE if I want to. Their new agent-forward UI hides the code if you don't want to see it as much, but I and many others think that it giving me a full, colourful graphical editor to view changes in is a huge advantage.

I'm not telling you to go use cursor, just to help clarify that you can drive both solutions with the exact same approach and skillset and get very similar results - the difference is the UI. I personally like being able to paste screenshots into the agent, etc.

1 more reply

jimbokun2mo ago

So that sounds like Claude Code is an inferior subset of Cursor. That Cursor can work like Claude Code, but Claude Code is lacking Cursor’s editing capabilities.

3 more replies

scottyah2mo ago

It's always funny to see people's reactions to AI because it's the same they would treat junior engineers if nobody was around to raise an eyebrow. I've had a super micromanager who was absolutely insistent on naming variables and whether the open brackets were on the same line or a new line. I've also had people who just gave me the desired functionality and let me figure out the in-between and put in my own creative features, etc with just slight feedback.

We have OG Cursor for the micromanagers (who want to approve/deny every line) and things like Claude Code for those who are less picky about the how, and able to be amazed at what it creates.

1 more reply

slashdave2mo ago

Yep. Cursor is remote indexing. It allows their agents to fish around in the code base more efficiently. I assume the Claude folks are working on this.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

6 comments · 1 top-level

ninininino2mo ago· 5 in thread

> Cursor, same as Copilot, has been used by people who are basically pair programming with the AI. So, on abstraction down.

This is not really true anymore.

Cursor has better cloud agents than Claude. The multi-agent experience is better, the worktree management is better. Tagging specific code or files in chat is better.

It's hard for me to express the level of pain and frustration I feel going from Cursor to Claude / Conductor+Claude / Claude Extension for VS Code, Claude in Zed, etc.

Really hoping Claude puts more energy into Cowork as a competitor for Cursor and Codex.

dugidugout2mo ago

This isn't to suggest you can't work at this abstraction in cursor or w/e interface, but the features you suggest are hardly relevant to the divide zwaps is identifying.

mikestorrent2mo ago

1 more reply

jimbokun2mo ago

So that sounds like Claude Code is an inferior subset of Cursor. That Cursor can work like Claude Code, but Claude Code is lacking Cursor’s editing capabilities.

3 more replies

scottyah2mo ago

We have OG Cursor for the micromanagers (who want to approve/deny every line) and things like Claude Code for those who are less picky about the how, and able to be amazed at what it creates.

1 more reply

slashdave2mo ago

Yep. Cursor is remote indexing. It allows their agents to fish around in the code base more efficiently. I assume the Claude folks are working on this.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse