AI in your IDE (e.g. Cursor) vs AI in your terminal (Claude Code) — what’s the better flow?
AI coding tools seem to come in two main flavors: IDE-based, like @Cursor and @GitHub Copilot, and terminal-based setups, like using @Claude Code to generate commands, scripts, or entire files. Both have their fans, but which one actually helps you move faster?
Curious what flow people are sticking with long term, and where you see the most gains (or frustrations).
3.1K views
Replies
Chive
Why choose? I use Claude Code primarily, but use Zed and its AI features for editing smaller, contained things. I will say that I'm way more productive with Claude Code than I am with any of the other options, though. It's much more effective as a pair-programmer.
@timsu 100% agree!
Product Hunt
@timsu Interesting! What is it about Claude Code that makes more effective for you?
Product Hunt
@timsu Why?
Chive
@rajiv_ayyangar It's a lot of little things. It's very clever in how it handles images, its use of tools is excellent, the code it generates tends to be of very high quality (I'm honestly surprised how good sometimes. It still suffers from the same issues as other agentic coding tools (misunderstanding, losing context as the conversation gets longer, sometimes really bad code), but the hits far outweigh the misses. Also, their use of concurrent sub-agents to offload tasks (and the context those tasks take up) is extremely clever. Overall they're not specifically doing anything the other tools aren't, but each part of it is just a little better, which leads to an overall greatly improved feel to the thing.
Honestly, I'm team "why choose?" on this one. Been using both Claude Code and Cursor daily, and they each handle different parts of my workflow really well.
Claude Code excels at the bigger picture stuff - refactoring architecture, generating entire feature sets, working through complex logic across multiple files. The context awareness is impressive, and those new sub-agents are powerful for delegating specialized tasks with dedicated context.
But when I'm deep in a coding session, Cursor's autocomplete is great for those "I know exactly what I want to write" moments. Same with quick bug fixes - it's right there, no context switching needed.
The combo works because they solve different cognitive loads. Claude Code handles the "thinking" work - architectural decisions, complex implementations. Cursor handles the "typing" work - completing patterns, fixing syntax.
@pedro_marchal 100% agree
AI For Developers lists and compare all of them!
Product Hunt
@tokyodal interesting resource!
ZapDigits
As a dev @Cursor works better.
Product Hunt
@malithmcrdev Why so?
ZapDigits
@aaronoleary so I can work hybrid. I don't want AI to decide what code to write. I always review whatever AI write. I also use AI as a helping tool like a full-time coder.
Product Hunt
@hussain_attari Firmly agree with this.
I actually used @Cursor quite a lot in my previous project, despite the limitations of the models I could use and some pricing issues. It was a bit challenging, but I managed to make progress.
Later on, near the end of the project, I switched to @Claude Code , and the experience was on a whole other level. The function code is much clearer, and the responsiveness is outstanding right now.
What I do is use Cloud Code inside the Cursor IDE, which helps me visualize things better.
Product Hunt
@realbellosanchez I haven't tried Claude Code yet! Have you come across many bugs when trying to use Claude Code? That's one of my big pain points when using Cursor, the amount of bugs it creates
@aaronoleary I haven’t had a bad experience with Claude Code so far. It does require a different workflow, though. Since it runs entirely in the terminal and doesn’t have an undo option like Cursor, it’s important to be precise when giving instructions.
Claude Code works in two modes — conversation mode for analysis and planning, and agent mode for actually making the changes.
I usually start in conversation mode to walk it through the context and what I want, and only switch to agent mode once everything’s clear. That approach has helped me avoid most issues.
Product Hunt
@aaronoleary @realbellosanchez It sounds like Claude code is better for you despite being in terminal, and that you're willing to deal with the extra friction because the agent itself is a lot more helpful. Is that accurate?
Nitrode
Just started using Claude Code a week ago and I gotta say, I'm loving the terminal-based setup and being able to code, build/run, and push to GitHub all in one place.
Product Hunt
@richard_gu Can you say more? Are there specific cases where it keeps you more in flow to be in terminal?
Nitrode
@rajiv_ayyangar I'd say probably cases where I'm making edits to various files and I can take more of a backseat as the code reviewer. Starting from scratch and making code organization/architecture decisions I think I'd still prefer to be directly in the IDE.
IDE AI helps you write the code right. Terminal AI helps you write the right code. Subtle difference, massive impact.
Product Hunt
@dmytrotomniuk Can you flesh this out? I don't really understand why it would make a difference whether it's in the IDE or terminal.
@rajiv_ayyangar IDE helps you with surgical precision at the line level. It perfects the mechanics of coding syntax, autocompletion, refactoring a single function freeing you from the mental load of remembering details so you can stay in flow. Terminal helps you by understanding the project's entire architecture. You give it a strategic goal, and it coordinates the entire system, taking on the cognitive load of planning and context switching.
I've been bouncing back and forth between Windsurf and Warp and having a great time!
I essentially use Windsurf for more precision work — and debugging behaviors or particulars of the Raycast API that require more nuance.
I use Warp with Claude Sonnet 4 for long-running tasks, fleshing out new features (using o3 Planning) or working through the complexities of git.
@chrismessina have you tried Claude Code? Do you think Warp is a valid alternative? I know they are a bit different, but with the weekly limits and all coming to CC, I better prepare and incorporate new tech "under my belt".. Cheers
For me, using both is the best way, Claude in Cursors Terminal brings me the code stability and I'm using it when deploys are failing or authentication , serious stuff. For new features im using cursors ai, mostly claude sonnet 4 max , Opus 4 is better but it costs far too much...
My setup is Warp, Cursor, Claude Code & Gemini CLI. Most of the heavy lifting is done with Claude, Cursor for looking over code and visualizing the code base. Sometimes I'll use Cursor for small edits. Gemini mainly for content stuff and documentation, I don't like it creating code for my app. Warp essentially just using for terminal, sometimes use their AI too. All this into 3 panels on a ultrawide works for me. But if I was 1 or 2 monitor setup, Claude / Cursor. I was primarily using Windsurf before trying Claude.
IDE-based is a fluent way to start AI. Engineers in my team moved to Cursor quickly and efficiently. Every part would be totally changed by AI. So is coding. OUT of IDE is a new and imaginative coding mode. I vote for terminal-based or some other new mode.
I haven't tested which "helps me move faster," but when using @Warp, it feels less cramped than when using e.g. @Cursor. Even if I have an IDE full screen on a 27'' display, it feels cramped having all those sections open. In contrast, using terminal-based AI, which I have at full screen on a 14'' laptop, doesn't feel cramped to me.
But I assume, based on previous uses of AI in the IDE, that would be faster. From what I remember of using those platforms, the agents never asked for permission to change something. That might've changed with newer updates; it's been a while since I tested a few. With @Warp, I have it set to always ask me for approval before anything happens. That fine-grained control does slow me down since I have to review commands or file changes before the agent can move on.
I do see that control as a gain rather than a frustration. Especially this past week, with the news of the Replit disaster.
In our experience building semantic workflows, the point is beyond whether IDE vs terminal; for us it’s context fluidity applied to a very specific problem which is converting prototypes to code then to full stack applications.
We've stepped outside the IDE vs terminal experience because neither fully accommodates the modeling demands of our semantic workflows. Both were quite inefficient and primeval and mainly because of how the underlying LLMs are structured for customers access - mainly on how Claude subscriptions are becoming more restrictive on utilization with now formalized weekly rate limits.
Terminal-based agents like Claude Code are still early stage in my view - they excel at one-shot precision and scripting at speed when paired with strong mental models - but at scale, we found the code generation lacks semantic structure. Breaks as state, design logic and interface scaffolding and overall it's just too costly working at scale.
IDE integrations like Cursor promise spatial fluidity, but are still bound to a code-first view that struggles with interface reasoning and layout scaffolding - it lacks agentic memory and struggles to reason across layout intent.
We've decided to work our models from the ground up from June last year and to operate on a different level entirely; they're architected specifically around semantic intent, modular coherence and multimodal reasoning as conventional wrappers still can't parse the layered context we work in.
I’ve tried both setups, and personally, Cursor worked better for my use case. We mainly used IDE-based tools while building our AI-powered fintech platform, VibeTrader. They just feel way more fluid when you’re juggling logic across multiple files.
Eternal AI
I won't choose any specific one. IDEs like Cursor and Copilot are nice for having everything in one spot, with code suggestions right there where you’re working. If you’re building something too complex, it helps to stay in the flow.
Terminal setups like Claude Code can be faster for generating commands or scripts on the fly without the noise. It’s more direct.
And most importantly, it depends on what you’re building. I’d say use whatever keeps you productive, but mixing both could work well.
It's weird. Not a single person was using the terminal to write meaningful production code before Claude Code. No one I know is doing it now. It's not a seamless experience, and devs like IDEs for a reason. I'm convinced Anthropic is astroturfing Claude Code support hard. The experience is worse in every way. I love their models but this is a half baked UX
Claude is my choice, so far, my coding knowledge is minimal. Less than minimal. But with claude I’m about to launch an Alpha test that was built completely through Claude code. Claude help me confiture everything, at Git repository, Vercel server, website, Microsoft graph configuration, and even an supabase, everything Claude was at the middle of it. Now you do have to wrangle it in a times and force it to check its work. We had a few error loops that you have to be able to walk through to get arround. But once you get comfortable you can fly. Because of Claude i built what will hopefully decent and functional product in only about be 20-30 hours.