8 comments

  • aroman 40 minutes ago
    I was an early and passionate adopter and paying customer of Cursor (since 2023!), but it’s probably been 6 months since I opened it.

    These days I “write” code with claude code and codex, and read/review it on GitHub. If I need to read it locally, I use a plain text editor.

    Can someone help me understand what value cursor offers in 2026?

    • redox99 23 minutes ago
      Cursor has two benefits

      1) It's still an IDE. Because of pricing I mostly use Codex, but I always have a VSCode/Cursor IDE open, thus have to juggle between the two. Working directly in the IDE is more comfortable. For full on vibecoding that might be worse, but when you want to do a deep review of the changes, an IDE is way better than reading a diff on github.

      2) It supports every model. It's often very helpful to try different models when you don't like the result of the first.

      • pwython 15 minutes ago
        Can't VS Code extensions solve your use case?
        • redox99 11 minutes ago
          I tried the codex extension many months ago but I didn't like it. I use mostly the Codex App, or sometimes the Codex TUI inside the IDE terminal.
    • kalaksi 33 minutes ago
      Recently they also seem to have made big changes that makes Cursor worse for editing code by hand. I'm not sure what they are trying to do, but it doesn't feel like vscode fork anymore. I'm starting to consider alternatives.

      To answer your question though, to me your workflow seems cumbersome. Cursor is more integrated and more frictionless.

    • LeBit 10 minutes ago
      How do you diff ?

      Unless by "text editor" you mean Neovim or Emacs ?

      • bakies 5 minutes ago
        Sounds like on GitHub. That's how I do it too.
    • leonvoss 13 minutes ago
      I don't think it offers any. I got tired of switching between Codex and Claude plus I wanted to start using glm and kimi so I switch to pi. Then I got tired of VSCode eating up battery and RAM so I moved to Neovim which has barely any efficiency downside anymore since most code is not written by hand and if you know how to use it well it was only maybe 10% less efficient than VSCode to begin with. I am not sure why a heavy desktop application would be better than nvim + pi in terminal which are both super extensible via vibecoding and very light on resources.
  • slashdave 27 minutes ago
    Cursor achieved fast adoption by making it simple to move from Visual Studio code.

    Double-edged sword. It is also simple to move back to VS code and agent extensions.

  • oooyay 11 minutes ago
    Cursor was a great introduction to agentic engineering but I've learned their Claude pricing is largely just batch purchases. Their real moat I think is Composer 2.5 because both their agentic and IDE experiences fall short of Codex and Claude Desktop in my opinion. I think their sales will tell you economically they make the most sense and I would probably agree, but cost isn't everything especially when the spread isn't that wide. At this moment, capability is really king.

    These days I'm using Codex and Claude Desktop with Zen when I need to look at code. Codex's real time audio chat feature (not dictation) is also second to none when paired with their agentic flow.

  • hnnbxu2nwi 41 minutes ago
    Small thing but makes a big difference
  • btown 26 minutes ago
    I am shocked, shocked, that a company that is part of SpaceXAI would become hostile to its existing paying users and partners. This has never happened before in history.
  • sergiotapia 9 minutes ago
    Cursor you have a beautiful comeback story, you have a wonderful model with Composer 2.5, and a terrific behemoth with Grok 4.5 now. A top-tier dev ux with the Cursor agent app, why on earth are you squandering this opportunity and behaving this way?

    You came back from the dead pretty much and now you're pissing it away for what exactly?

    Do not spite your individual developer customers or you will perish yet again.

  • fillbookio 36 minutes ago
    The PM comment above matches what I've seen. Hiding a usage number doesn't remove the anxiety, it just removes the user's ability to verify it, so people pad their mental estimate upward and quietly disengage. For anything usage-billed, trust in the tool is capped by trust in the number, and you can't build that trust by making the number invisible.

    The move that actually works is the opposite: make it legible. Show the breakdown, show what drove the spike, let people reconcile it against their own expectation. A scary number you can explain beats a hidden one they have to guess at.

    Removing the CSV export is the part that stings most, because that's the one thing power users reach for the moment they stop trusting the dashboard.

  • songhonglei1985 50 minutes ago
    [flagged]
    • jagged-chisel 47 minutes ago
      Hiding pricing is always a negative to the customer