With the benefit that you can also pull in people who don't like using VSCode such as people who use Jetbrains or terminal based code editors.

The IDE/editor is for me, the agent doesn't need it. That also means I am not forced to used whatever imperfect forked IDE the agent is implemented against.

https://www.reddit.com/r/cursor/comments/1mk8ks5/discussion_...

https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/llm-gateway#l...

https://docs.litellm.ai/docs/tutorials/claude_responses_api

Claude Code likes to add "attribution" in commit messages, which is just pure spam.

The whole agentic coding via CLI experience could be much improved by:

- Making it easy to see what command I last issued, without having to scroll up through reams of output hunting for context - Making it easy to spin up a proper sandbox to run sessions unattended - Etc.

Maybe for code generation, what we actually need is a code generator that is itself deterministic but uses AI, instead of AI that does code generation.

Why are we purposely creating CLI dialects?

Yesterday, I was writing about a way I found to pass the same guideline documents into Claude, Gemini, and Aider CLI-coders: https://github.com/sutt/agro/blob/master/docs/case-studies/a...

I guess having links to supplementary rules files is an option, but I'm not sure which agents (if any) would work well with that.

I pay for Cursor and ChatGPT. I can imagine I’d pay for Gemini if I used an android. The chat bots (1) won’t keep the subscription competitive with APIs because the cost and usage models are different and (2) most chat bots today are more of a UX competition than model quality. And the only winners are ChatGPT and whatever integrated options the user has by default (Gemini, MSFT Copilot, etc).

If Cursor can build the better UX for all the use-cases, mobile/desktop chatbot, assistant, in IDE coding agent, CLI coding agent, web-based container coding agent, etc.

In theory, they can spend all their resourcing on this, so you could assume they could have those be more polished.

If they win the market-share here, than the models are just commodity, Cursor lets you pick which ever is best at any given time.

In a sense, "users" are going to get locked in on the tooling. They learn the commands, configuration, and so on of Cursor, it's a higher cost for them to re-learn a different UX. Uninstalling and re-installing another app, plugin, etc. is annoying.

Unless they pair up with OpenAI or Meta.

cursor and 3rd party tools will, unless they make their own superior foundation model, will always have to fight the higher marginal cost battle. This is particularly bad insofar that they offer fixed pricing subscriptions. That means they’re going to have to employ more context saving tricks which are at odds with better performance.

If the cost economics result in Cursor holding, say, 20% fewer tokens in context versus model provided coding agents, they will necessarily get worse performance, all things equal.

Unless Cursor offers something dramatically different outside of the basic agentic coding stack it’s hard to see why the market will converge to cursor.