working with cursor was like working with a really good junior dev

working with claude code is like working with a really good mid (2-3y of experience) dev. 

now even mid-tier devs are doomed.

mostly reading and building. 
prev: @clankfun, improbable, github, amazon. https://ntik.me

Working in CLI just comes naturally vs an IDE where the clutter makes it somewhat cumbersome. But I think we are also splitting hair.

two differerent questions:

> why do devs prefer claude code? 
- it does more end to end. it can implement more complicated features with fewer mistakes and less need for hand holding. 

> why do devs prefer CLI over IDEs (or let's say more broadly UI)
- I don't speak for all devs, but probably because CLIs can be composed programmatically with bash scripts and usually allow for more customisation. this doesn't really apply to claude code though. I'm not sure why they made it a CLI, but I personally don't mind it because I use a tonne of CLI tools already and it doesn't spook me.

why do devs prefer CLI over IDEs
like what's the attraction of claude code over cursor. is it just more performant or the product form factor is desired? 

cc: @christopher also brought this up once but i didn't fully understand

software artist | building /outpaint | ex: @coinbase ex: bisontrails | seeker of the flow state | artivilla.com

That's what I mean by custom tooling and constraints; that makes the agent behave differently.

cursor has had an agentic mode for a while now. I'm comparing apples to apples here.

cursor is just an IDE. We're comparing Claude's Sonnet 4 inside an IDE to a CLI. Even though claude code is likely using a similar model, Its tooling and resource constraints make it a better agent.

Tried Gemini CLI ? 

I believe claude code does some insane frontend edits, meanwhile Gemini does some crazy code logic / backend logics