Things are changing so fast with these vscode forks I m barely able to keep up. Which one are you guys using currently? How does the autocomplete etc, compare between the two?
Zed. They've upped their game in the AI integration and so far it's the best one I've seen (external from work). Cursor and VSCode+Copilot always felt slow and janky, Zed is much less janky feels like pretty mature software, and I can just plug in my Gemini API key and use that for free/cheap instead of paying for the editor's own integration.
I use Cursor as my base editor + Cline as my main agentic tool. I have not tried Windsurf so alas I can't comment here but the Cursor + Cline combo works brilliantly for me:<p>* Cursor's Cmk-K edit-inline feature (with Claude 3.7 as my base model there) works brilliantly for "I just need this one line/method fixed/improved"<p>* Cursor's tab-complete (neé SuperMaven) is great and better than any other I've used.<p>* Cline w/ Gemini 2.5 is absolutely the best I've tried when it comes to full agentic workflow. I throw a paragraph of idea at it and it comes up with a totally workable and working plan & implementation<p>Fundamentally, and this may be my issue to get over and not actually real, I like that Cline is a bring-your-own-API-key system and an open source project, because their incentives are to generate the best prompt, max out the context, and get the best results (because everyone working on it wants it to work well). Cursor's incentive is to get you the best results....within their budget (of $.05 per request for the max models and within your monthly spend/usage allotment for the others). That means they're going to try to trim context or drop things or do other clever/fancy cost saving techniques <i>for Cursor, Inc.</i>. That's at odds with getting the best results, even if it only provides minor friction.
For the agentic stuff I think every solution can be hit or miss. I've tried claude code, aider, cline, cursor, zed, roo, windsurf, etc. To me it is more about using the right models for the job, which is also constantly in flux because the big players are constantly updating their models and sometimes that is good and sometimes that is bad.<p>But I daily drive Cursor because the main LLM feature I use is tab-complete, and here Cursor blows the competition out of the water. It understands what I want to do next about 95% of the time when I'm in the middle of something, including comprehensive multi-line/multi-file changes. Github Copilot, Zed, Windsurf, and Cody aren't at the same level imo.
Aider! Use the editor of your choice and leave your coding assistant separate. Plus, it's open source and will stay like this, so no risk to see it suddenly become expensive or dissappear.
For daily work - neither. They basically promote the style of work where you end up with mediocre code that you don't fully understand, and with time the situation gets worse.<p>I get much better result by asking specific question to a model that has huge context (Gemini) and analyzing the generated code carefully. That's the opposite of the style of work you get with Cursor or Windsurf.<p>Is it less efficient? If you are paid by LoCs, sure. But for me the quality and long-term maintainability are far more important. And especially the Tab autocomplete feature was driving me nuts, being wrong roughly half of the time and basically just interrupting my flow.
For a time windsurf was way ahead of cursor in full agentic coding, but now I hear cursor has caught up. I have yet to switch back to try out cursor again but starting to get frustrated with Windsurf being restricted to gathering context only 100-200 lines at a time.<p>So many of the bugs and poor results that it can introduce are simply due to improper context. When forcibly giving it the necessary context you can clearly see it’s not a model problem but it’s a problem with the approach of gathering disparate 100 line snippets at a time.<p>Also, it struggles with files over 800ish lines which is extremely annoying<p>We need some smart deepseek-like innovation in context gathering since the hardware and cost of tokens is the real bottleneck here.
I’ve been using Zed Agent with GitHub Copilot’s models, but with GitHub planning to limit usage, I’m exploring alternatives.<p>Now I'm testing Claude Code’s $100 Max plan. It feels like magic - editing code and fixing compile errors until it builds. The downside is I’m reviewing the code a lot less since I just let the agent run.<p>So far, I’ve only tried it on vibe coding game development, where every model I’ve tested struggles. It says “I rewrote X to be more robust and fixed the bug you mentioned,” yet the bug still remains.<p>I suspect it will work better for backend web development I do for work: write a failing unit test, then ask the agent to implement the feature and make the test pass.<p>Also, give Zed’s Edit Predictions a try. When refactoring, I often just keep hitting Tab to accept suggestions throughout the file.
I'm with Cursor for the simple reason it is in practice unlimited. Honestly the slow requests after 500 per month are fast enough. Will I stay with Cursor? No, ill switch the second something better comes along.
I am betting on myself.<p>I built a minimal agentic framework (with editing capability) that works for a lot of my tasks with just seven tools: read, write, diff, browse, command, ask and think.<p>One thing I'm proud of is the ability to have it be more proactive in making changes and taking next action by just disabling the `ask` tool.<p>I won't say it is better than any of the VSCode forks, but it works for 70% of my tasks in an understandable manner. As for the remaining stuff, I can always use Cursor/Windsurf in a complementary manner.<p>It is open, have a look at <a href="https://github.com/aperoc/toolkami">https://github.com/aperoc/toolkami</a> if it interests you.
Recently, Augment Code. But more generally, the "leader" switches so frequently at this point, I don't commit to use either and switch more or less freely from one to another. It helps to have monthly subscriptions and free cancellation policy.<p>I expect, or hope for, more stability in the future, but so far, from aider to Copilot, to Claude Code, to Cursor/Windsurf/Augment, almost all of them improve (or at least change) fast and seem to borrow ideas from each other too, so any leader is temporary.
Cursor: Autocomplete is really good. At a time when I compared them, it was without a doubt better than Githib Copilot autocomplete. Cmd-K - insert/edit snippet at cursor - is good when you use good old Sonnet 3.5. ;;; Agent mode, is, honestly, quite disappointing; it doesn't feel like they put a lot of thought into prompting and wrapping LLM calls. Sometimes it just fails to submit code changes. Which is especially bad as they charge you for every request. Also I think they over-charge for Gemini, and Gemini integration is especially poor.<p>My reference for agent mode is Claude Code. It's far from perfect, but it uses sub-tasks and summarization using smaller haiku model. That feels way more like a coherent solution compared to Cursor. Also Aider ain't bad when you're OK with more manual process.<p>Windsurf: Have only used it briefly, but agent mode seems somewhat better thought out. For example, they present possible next steps as buttons. Some reviews say it's even more expensive than Cursor in agent mode.
Windsurf at the moment. It now can run multiple "flows" in parallel, so I can set one cascade off to look into a bug somewhere while another cascade implements a feature elswhere in the code base. The LLMs spit out their tokens in the background, I drop in eventually to reveiew and accept or ask for further changes.
Since this topic is closely related to my new project, I’d love to hear your opinion on it.<p>I’m thinking of building an AI IDE that helps engineers write production quality code quickly when working with AI. The core idea is to introduce a new kind of collaboration workflow.<p>You start with the same kind of prompt, like “I want to build this feature...”, but instead of the model making changes right away, it proposes an architecture for what it plans to do, shown from a bird’s-eye view in the 2D canvas.<p>You collaborate with the AI on this architecture to ensure everything is built the way you want. You’re setting up data flows, structure, and validation checks. Once you’re satisfied with the design, you hit play, and the model writes the code.<p>Website (in progress): <a href="https://skylinevision.ai" rel="nofollow">https://skylinevision.ai</a><p>YC Video showing prototype that I just finished yesterday: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXlHNJPQRtk" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXlHNJPQRtk</a><p>Karpathy’s post that talks about this:
<a href="https://x.com/karpathy/status/1917920257257459899" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/karpathy/status/1917920257257459899</a><p>Thoughts? Do you think this workflow has a chance of being adopted?
VS Code with GitHub Copilot works great, though they are usually a little late to add features compared to Cursor or Windsurf. I use the 'Edit' feature the most.<p>Windsurf I think has more features, but I find it slower compared to others.<p>Cursor is pretty fast, and I like how it automatically suggests completion even when moving my cursor to a line of code. (Unlike others where you need to 'trigger' it by typing a text first)<p>Honorable mention: Supermaven. It was the first and fastest AI autocomplete I used. But it's no longer updated since they were acquired by Cursor.
90% of their features could fit inside a VS Code extension.<p>There are already a few popular open-source extension doing 90%+ of what Cursor is doing - Cline, Roo Code (a fork of Cline), Kilo Code (a fork of Roo Code and something I help maintain).
OP probably means to keep using vscode. Honestly, best thing you can do is just try each for a few weeks. Feature comparison tables only say so much, particularly because the terminology is still in a state of flux.<p>I’ve personally never felt at home in vscode. If you’re open to switching, definitely check out Zed, as others are suggesting.
I really like Zed. Have not tried any of the mentioned by op.
Zed I feel like is getting somewhere that can replace Sublime Text completely (but not there yet).
Cursor has for me had the best UX and results until now. Trae's way of adding context is way too annoying. Windsurf has minor UI-issues all over. Options that are extensions in VSCode do not cut it in turn of providing fantastic UI/UX because of the API not supporting it.
You need none of these fancy tools if you iterate over specs instead of iterating over code. I explain it all in here:
<a href="https://www.cleverthinkingsoftware.com/spec-first-development-the-missing-manual-for-building-with-ai/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cleverthinkingsoftware.com/spec-first-developmen...</a>
Claude Code.
And... Junie in Jetbrains IDE. It appeared recently and I'm really impressed by its quality. I think it is on the level of Claude Code.
Personally, if you take the time to configure it well, I think Aider is vastly superior. You can have 4 terminals open in a grid and be running agentic coding workflows on them and 4x the throughput of someone in Cursor, whereas Cursor's UI isn't really amenable to running a bunch of instances and managing them all simultaneously. That plus Aider lets you do more complex automated Gen -> Typecheck -> Lint -> Test workflows with automated fixing.
I wish your own coding would just be augmented like somebody looking over your shoulder. The problem with the current AI coding is that you don't know your code base anymore. Basically, like somebody helping you figure out stuff faster, update documentation etc.
I've had trials for both running and tested both on the same codebases.<p>Cursor works roughly how I've expected. It reads files and either gets it right or wrong in agent mode.<p>Windsurf seems restricted to reading files 50 lines at a time, and often will stop after 200 lines [0]. When dealing with existing code I've been getting poorer results than Cursor.<p>As to autocomplete: perhaps I haven't set up either properly (for PHP) but the autocomplete in both is good for pattern matching changes I make, and terrible for anything that require knowledge of what methods an object has, the parameters a method takes etc. They both hallucinate wildly, and so I end up doing bits of editing in Cursor/Windsurf and having the same project open in PhpStorm and making use of its intellisense.<p>I'm coming to the end of both trials and the AI isn't adding enough over Jetbrains PhpStorm's built in features, so I'm going back to that until I figure out how to reduce hallucinations.<p>0. <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Codeium/comments/1hsn1xw/report_from_a_windsurf_user/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/Codeium/comments/1hsn1xw/report_fro...</a>
I use the Windsurf Cascade plugin in JetBrains IDEs. My current flow is I rough-in the outline of what I want and have generally use the plugin to improve what I have by creating tests, performance improvements, or just making things more idiomatic. I need to invest time to add rules at both a global and project level which should make the overall experience event better.
I feel a bit out of place here, as I’m not a dev… I come from the operational side, but do all my work in Puppet code. I was using Codeium + VSC and life was wonderful. One day, though, everything updated and Codeium was gone in favor of Windsurf and things got crazy. VSC no longer understood Puppet code and didn’t seem to be able to access the language tools from the native Puppet Development Kit plugins either.<p>The crazy part is my Vim setup has the Codeium plugins all still in place, and it works perfectly. I’m afraid if I update the plugin to a windsurf variant, it will completely “forget” about Puppet, its syntax, and everything it has “learned” from my daily workflow over the last couple years.<p>Has anyone else seen anything similar?
I've been flipping between the two, and overall I've found Cursor to be the better experience. Its autocomplete feels better at 'looking ahead' and figuring out what I might be doing next, while Windsurf tends to focus more on repeating whatever I've done recently.<p>Also, while Windsurf has more project awareness, and it's better at integrating things across files, actually trying to get it to read enough context to do so intelligently is like pulling teeth. Presumably this is a resource-saving measure but it often ends up taking more tokens when it needs to be redone.<p>Overall Cursor 'just works' better IME. They both have free trials though so there's little reason not to try both and make a decision yourself. Also, Windsurf's pricing is lower (and they have a generous free tier) so if you're on a tight budget it's a good option.
Amazon Q. Claude Code is great (the best imho, what everything else measures against right now), and Amazon Q seems almost as good and for the first week I've been using it I'm still on the free tier.<p>The flat pricing of Claude Code seems tempting, but it's probably still cheaper for me to go with usage pricing. I feel like loading my Anthropic account with the minimum of $5 each time would last me 2-3 days depending on usage. Some days it wouldn't last even a day.<p>I'll probably give Open AI's Codex a try soon, and also circle back to Aider after not using it for a few months.<p>I don't know if I misundersand something with Cursor or Copilot. It seems so much easier to use Claude Code than Cursor, as Claude Code has many more tools for figuring things out. Cursor also required me to add files to the context, which I thought it should 'figure out' on its own.
It might seem contrary to the current trend, but I've recently returned to using nvim as my daily driver after years with VS Code. This shift wasn't due to resource limitations but rather the unnecessary strain from agentic features consuming high amounts of resources.
I think with the answer, each responder should include their level of coding proficiency. Or, at least whether they are able to (or even bother to) read the code that the tool generates. Preferences would vary wildly based on it.
> Neither? I'm surprised nobody has said it yet. I turned off AI autocomplete ...<p>This represents one group of developers and is certainly valid for that group. To each their own<p>For another group, where I belong, AI is a great companion! We can handle the noise and development speed is improved as well as the overall experience.<p>I prefer VSCode and GitHub copilot. My opinion is this combo will eventually eat all the rest, but that's besides the point.<p>Agent mode could be faster, sometimes it is rather slow thinking but not a big deal. This mode is all I use these days. Integration with the code base is a huge part of the great experience
I evaluated Windsurf at a friend's recommendation around half a year ago and found that it could not produce any useful behaviors on files above a thousand lines or so. I understand this is mostly a property of the model, but certainly also a property of the approach used by the editor of just tossing the entire file in, yeah? I haven't tried any of these products since then, but it might be worth another shot because Gemini might be able to handle these files.
I've been using cursor for several months. Absolutely hate Agent mode - it jumps too far ahead, and it's solutions, though valid, can overcomplicate the whole flow. It can also give you a whole bunch of code that you have to accept blindly will work, and is not super great at making good file layouts, etc. I've switched to autocomplete with the ask mode when I'm stuck
I use neovim now, after getting tired of the feature creep and the constant chasing of shiny new features.<p>AI is not useful when it does the thinking for you. It's just advanced snippets at that point. I only use LLMs to explain things or to clarify a topic that doesn't make sense right away to me. That's when it shows it's real strength.<p>sing AI for autocomplete? I turn it off.
Recently started using Cursor for adding a new feature on a small codebase for work, after a couple of years where I didn't code. It took me a couple of tries to figure out how to work with the tool effectively, but it worked great! I'm now learning how to use it with TaskMaster, it's such a different way to do and play with software. Oh, one important note: I went with Cursor also because of the pricing, that's despite confusing in term of fast vs slow requests, it smells less consumption base.<p>BTW There's a new OSS competitor in town that got the front a couple of days ago - Void: Open-source Cursor alternative <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43927926">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43927926</a>
I'm glad there are finally multiple options for agentic for JetBrains so I no longer have to sometimes switch over to VSCode and its various versions.<p>Copilot at work and Junie at home. I found nothing about my VSCode excursions to be better than Sublime or IntelliJ.
I find Windsurf almost unusable. It’s hard to explain but the same models in Zed, Windsurf, Copilot and Cursor produce drastically worse code in Windsurf for whatever reason. The agent also tends to do way more stupid things at random, like wanting to call MCP tools, creating new files, then suddenly forgetting how to use tools and apologizing a dozen times<p>I can’t really explain or prove it, but it was noticeable enough to me that I canceled my subscription and left Windsurf<p>Maybe a prompting or setting issue? Too high temperature?<p>Nowadays Copilot got good enough for me that it became my daily driver. I also like that I can use my Copilot subscription in different places like Zed, Aider, Xcode
Personally, I've been using Cursor since day 1. Lately with Gemini 2.5 Pro. I've also started experimenting with Zed and local models served via ollama in the last couple of days. Unfortunately, without good results so far.<p>I've created a list of self-hostable alternatives to cursor that I try to keep updated. <a href="https://selfhostedworld.com/alternative/cursor/" rel="nofollow">https://selfhostedworld.com/alternative/cursor/</a>
VSCode with auto complete and Gemini 2.5 Pro in a standalone chat (pick any interface that works for you, eg librechat, vertex etc). The agents-in-a-IDE experience is hella slow in my opinion.<p>Plus its less about the actual code generation and more about how to use it effectively. I wrote a simple piece on how I use it to automate the boring parts of dev work to great effect <a href="https://quickthoughts.ca/posts/automate-smarter-maximizing-reliable-workflows-with-llm-generated-scripts" rel="nofollow">https://quickthoughts.ca/posts/automate-smarter-maximizing-r...</a>)
Using Windsurf since the start and I am satisfied. Didn't look beyond it. Focused on actually doing the coding. It's impossible to keep up with daily AI news and if something groundbreaking happens it will go viral.
I compare them here <a href="https://www.devtoolsacademy.com/blog/cursor-vs-windsurf/" rel="nofollow">https://www.devtoolsacademy.com/blog/cursor-vs-windsurf/</a>
If you have any intellectual property worth protecting or need to comply with HIPAA, a completely local installation of Cline or Aider or Codeium with LM Studio with Qwen or DeepSeek Coder works well. If you'd rather not bother, I don't see any option to GitHub Copilot for Business. Sure, they're slower to catch up to Cursor, but catch up they will.<p><a href="https://github.com/features/copilot/plans?cft=copilot_li.features_copilot">https://github.com/features/copilot/plans?cft=copilot_li.fea...</a>
I just use Copilot (across VS Code, VS etc), it lets you pick the model you want and it's a fixed monthly cost (and there is a free tier). They have most of the core features of these other tools now.<p>Cursor, Windsurf et al have no "moat" (in startup speak), in that a sufficiently resourced organization (e.g. Microsoft) can just copy anything they do well.<p>VS code/Copilot has millions of users, cursor etc have hundreds of thousands of users. Google claims to have "hundreds of millions" of users but we can be pretty sure that they are quoting numbers for their search product.
Windsurf. The context awareness is superior compared to cursor. It falls over less and is better at retrieving relevant snippets of code. The premium plan is cheaper too, which is a nice touch.
How about Cursor vs. Windsurf vs. (Claude Desktop + MCP)?<p>Haven't tried out Cursor / Windsurf yet, but I can see how I can adapt Claude Desktop to specifically my workflow with a custom MCP server.
Neither! Neovim for most of my work and vscode w/ appropriate plugins when it's needed. If I need any LLM assistance I just run Claude Code in the terminal.
Cursor is good for basic stuff but Windsurf consistently solves issues Cursor fails on even after 40+ mins of retries and prompting changes.<p>Cursor is very lazy about looking beyond the current context or even context at all sometimes it feels it’s trying to one shot a guess without looking deeper.<p>Bad thing about Windsurf is the plans are pretty limited and the unlimited “cascade base” feels dumb the times I used it so ultimately I use Cursor until I hit a wall then switch to Windsurf.
Cursor. Good price, the predictive next edit is great, good enough with big code bases and with the auto mode i dont even spend all my prem requests.<p>I've tried VScode with copilot a couple of times and its frustrating, you have to point out individual files for edits but project wide requests are a pain.<p>My only pain is the workflow for developing mobile apps where I have to switch back and forth between Android Studio and Xcode as vscode extensions for mobile are not so good
I tested windsurf last week, it installed all dependencies to my global python....it didn't know best practices for Python, and didn't create any virtual env..... I am disappointed. My Cursor experience was slightly better. Still, one issue I had was how to make sure it does not change the part of code I don't want it to change. Every time you ask it to do something for A, it rewrote B in the process, very annoying.<p>My best experience so far is v0.dev :)
<a href="https://nonbios.ai" rel="nofollow">https://nonbios.ai</a> - [Disclosure: I am working on this.]<p>- We are in public beta and free for now.<p>- Fully Agentic. Controllable and Transparent. Agent does all the work, but keeps you in the loop. You can take back control anytime and guide it.<p>- Not an IDE, so don't compete with VSCode forks. Interface is just a chatbox.<p>- More like Replit - but full stack focussed. You can build backend services.<p>- Videos are up at youtube.com/@nonbios
Has anyone had any joy using a local model? Or is it still too slow?<p>On something like a M4 Macbook Pro can local models replace the connection to OpenAi/Anthropic?
I am using both. Windsurf feels complete less clunky. They are very close tho and the pace of major updates is crazy.<p>I dont like CLI based tools to code. Dont understand why they are being shilled. Claude code is maybe better at coding from scratch because it is only raw power and eating tokens like there is no tomorrow but it us the wrong interface to build anything serious.
Currently using cursor. I've found cursor even without the AI features to be a more responsive VS Code. I've found the AI features to be particularly useful when I contain the blast radius to a unit of work.<p>If I am continuously able to break down my work into smaller pieces and build a tight testing loop, it does help me be more productive.
I am retired now, out of the game, but I also suggest an alternative: running locally with open-codex, Ollama, and the qwen3 models and gemma3, and when necessary use something hosted like Gemini 2.5 Pro without an IDE.<p>I like to strike a balance between coding from scratch and using AI.
The only thing preventing me to keep using Cursor/Windsurf it's the lack of sync feature. I use different machines and it's crucial to keep the same exact configuration on each of them :(
While I haven't used Windsurf, I've been using Cursor and I LOVE it: especially the inline autocomplete is like reading my mind and making the work MUCH faster.<p>I can't say anything about Windsurf (as I haven't tried yet) but I can confidently say Cursor is great.
Regardless of which, my favorite model is ChatGPT's. I feel they're the only ones talking to customers. The other models are not as pleasant to work with as a software engineer.
I'm not sure the answer matters so much. My guess is that as soon as one of them gains any notable advantage over the other, the other will copy it as quickly as possible. They're using the same models under the hood.
I use Windsurf but it's been having ridiculous downtime lately.<p>I can't use Cursor because I don't use Ubuntu which is what their Linux packages are compiled against and they don't run on my non-Ubuntu distro of choice.
I like cursor, the autocomplete is great most of the time, as others have said use a shortcut to disable it.<p>The agents are a bit beta, it can’t solve bugs very often, and will write a load of garbage if you let it.
Claude code is the best so far, I am using the 200$ plan. in terms of feature matrix all tools are almost same with some hits and misses but speed is something which claude code wins.
Considering Microsoft is closing down on the ecosystem, I'd pick VSCode with Copilot over those two.<p>It's a matter of time before they're shuttered or their experience gets far worse.
Personally copilot/code assist for tab autocomplete, if I need longer boilerplate I request it to the LLM. Usually VIM with LSP.<p>Anything that’s not boilerplate I still code it
best thing about cursor is $20 and u basically get unlimited requests. I know you get “slower” after a certain amount of requests but honestly you dont feel it being slow and reasoning models are taking so much to answer, so anyways you send the prompt and go doing other stuff, so the slowness i dont think it matters and basically unlimited compute u know?
the age of swearing allegiance to a particular IDE/AI tool is over. I keep switching between Cursor and GH Copilot and for the most part they are very similar offerings. Then there's v0, Claude (for its Artifacts feature) and Cline which I use quite regularly for different requirements.
I agree with /u/welder. Preferably neither. Both of these are custom and runs the risk of being acquired and enshittified in future.<p>If you are using VScode, get familiar with cline. Aider is also excellent if you don’t want to modify your IDE.<p>Additionally, Jetbrains IDEs now also have built-in local LLMs and their auto-complete is actually fast and decent. They also have added a new chat sidepanel in recent update.<p>The goal is NOT to change your workflow or dev env, but to integrate these tools into your existing flow, despite what the narrative says.
Lately I switched to using a triple monitor setup and coding with both Cursor and Windsurf. Basically, the middle monitor has my web browser that shows the front-end I'm building. The left monitor has Cursor, and right one has Windsurf. I start coding with Cursor first because I'm more familiar with its interface, then I ask Windsurf to check if the code is good. If it is, then I commit. Once I'm done coding a feature, I'll also open VScode in the middle monitor, with Cline installed, and I will ask it to check the code again to make sure it's perfect.<p>I think people who ask the "either or" question are missing the point. We're supposed to use all the AI tools, not one or two of them.
Neither? I'm surprised nobody has said it yet. I turned off AI autocomplete, and sometimes use the chat to debug or generate simple code but only when I prompt it to. Continuous autocomplete is just annoying and slows me down.
Asking HN this is like asking which smartphone to use. You'll get suggestions for obscure Linux-based modular phones that weigh 6 kilos and lack a clock app or wifi. But they're better because they're open source or fully configurable or whatever. Or a smartphone that a fellow HNer created in his basement and plans to sell soon.<p>Cursor and Windsurf are both good, but do what most people do and use Cursor for a month to start with.