Coding with an AI IDE (visual) vs AI CLI (Terminal), what's better?
I've been primarily using @Cursor as I like how it operates, enjoy that it's visual, and I am getting very comfortable with using it and being able to easily select different code bits and modify what I need....however....
I recently started using Gemini CLI in @Warp and I must say... I'm kinda liking it. I feel that it's able to do a lot more, faster without needing me to jump in. When I do jump in, it's simply to provide it guidence and direction.
I haven't done much with it yet, but I can see myslef now doing a combination of CLI and IDE development. I'm curious what everyone elses experience is! Or if you haven't used a CLI or IDE AI tool, why?
A bit of additional background, I'm not a develpoer but more of a "vibe coder" I can kinda understand different languages and don't mind diving into tech docs but I prefer AI do more of the coding than me :)
Replies
Product Hunt
Watching Claude on the command line is fun but I really want to see the diff view as I have developed a healthy distrust of LLMs.
So you can do both as Claude Code has a lot of plugins for IDEs:
Claude Code for Jetbrains
Claude Code for VScode
See Anthropic docs on how to add Claude Code to your IDE for more
Product Hunt
@steveb ooo, this is a good place to start. I wonder if there's anything similar for Google CLI. Thanks, Steve!
@steveb @gabe there is for Google CLI as well. but its not officially supported. They who know, they know š
Product Hunt
@steveb @sentry_co sounds like it needs to be launched (if it hasn't already!)
Content Gap Report for LLM SEO
I would say in principle a richer ui (e.g. web based) will be better than a terminal user interface. It can do everything a terminal user interface can do and go way beyond it whenever it makes sense.
That said: right now product teams that focus on the agent loop, tool calling, management of context and subagents can move faster and I think that's why Claude Code and Amp have the edge right now with Gemini-CLI also catching up.
VS Code forks start with a huge surface area that comes with all kinds of scope creep challenges.
This helped Cursor et al to get started and onboard users fast because the user experience is largely backwards compatibility. It meets people where they are. Great for reducing switching costs.
I think it is not clear yet what the ideal UI will look like and if there ever will be a stable sweet spot if model capability and inference speed keep improving.
Starting with a blank slate is easier than building on top of legacy IDE concepts.
Product Hunt
@__tosh I didn't really consider the "startup" cost but agree with you a richer UI will fair better longer-term. So basically what we're looking at is a reimaginging of what an IDE would look like, similar to what the Browser Company did with @Dia Browser.
Interesting that you label Cursor as "Visual IDE", from the title I assumed you are talking about something like Lovable or V0.
If you are using CLI what are you using for manual editing? And the Cursor Tab feature?
Totally relate to the vibe coder angle!
Iāve had similar moments toggling between visual comfort and CLI efficiency, Cursorās visual clarity is great for quick edits, but Gemini CLI with Warp feels like itās reading your intent before you even finish typing.
Havenāt fully settled into a combo flow yet, but loving how these tools make deeper tinkering more inviting even for non-devs.
I'm confused by the fact that historically most people do the vast majority of their work in an IDE, so why would that change all of a sudden here? Being able to see the diff is a HUGE value add, especially until we can have much higher degree of trust in AI models.
Hybrid! Ide+cli via Cline on claude max subscription. Save on tokens š¤ (45k calls for $100) https://cline.bot/blog/how-to-use-your-claude-max-subscription-in-cline
I need diffs for my day to day for sure, for my sanity but also because once I retire for the night and look at what I did the next morning, sometimes just staring at a diff is so much easier than reading code.
That said, in my opinion there is no right way. For people who use Lovable/Bolt/Base44 and don't really know how to "read" diffs I'd argue that they really don't need the tranditional IDE experience.
Imagine someone who's never seen an IDE but wants to prototype an idea being limited to just that surface? Horrifying. I'd really like to see expansion of the current prompt/IDE/CLI methods to get REALLY freaky with it.
I feel like overtime we'll see an IDE the same way the latest crop of coders views vim or emacs, so I'm very in favor of moving away from an IDE despite using one myself!
As a product person, not a dev, my take might be controversial: CLI-based AI tools are becoming more valuable for rapid prototyping and operations than for hardcore development.
My experience so far:
1. Rapid Prototyping: @Cursor was a mind-blowing entry, showing me what was possible. But moving to a CLI workflow (like with Claude Code) felt more agentic. I don't need to review diffs for a disposable prototype meant to validate an idea. The AI's autonomy is a feature, not a bug, in this context. The thesis: for product people, CLI tools are faster for generating functional validation assets than IDE-based ones.
2. Ad-hoc Data Analysis: This is a killer use case. I'm not a fan of locked-in dashboards (e.g., @Stripe). Now, I just export a transaction CSV and use a CLI assistant to spin up a Python script for pattern discovery or anomaly detection. It's a direct, powerful workflow that bypasses the need for a dedicated data team for quick insights.
3. Light DevOps: The workflow extends surprisingly well. I use @Warp with an AI integration. A prompt like, "Upgrade my self-hosted n8n and deploy @NocoDB on the same server, ensuring both are routed through a VPN" is now feasible. It becomes a ~30-minute session of supervised command confirmation.
For non-developers, the value isn't just code generation. It's about having an interactive, agentic partner for technical tasks that were previously high-friction. This is a huge unlock.
I feel you, Cursorās visual vibe is perfect for precise tweaks especially considering I don't trust it enough unsupervised, but Gemini CLI in Warp just bulldozes through the heavy lifting without my constant micromanagement. So naturally, Iām now recently doing a hybrid: Gemini for scaffolding and things like that, but Cursor still works just fine when I need fine-grained control. I need a better flow though, I'm not gonna lie.
There are terminal CLIs inside of IDEs. You can literally use both. Why are you acting like you need to choose?