Why I reach for Cursor (and UI AI tools) before the terminal

I moved my daily coding into Cursor because I wanted the editor and the model in one window. I was tired of keeping a chat tab in the browser open next to a plugin that never matched my keybindings. I was also curious whether terminal agents would feel faster once I got used to them, so I spent a few months switching between Cursor, Claude Code in the terminal, Aider, and the occasional Codex-style CLI one-off. The UI won for ease of use on the work I do most hours of the day. What mattered more than familiar buttons was how each tool handles the bottleneck.

What I mean by easier

Easier means fewer context switches and less reconstruction. I want the file tree, the buffer I am editing, and the proposed change in one place, with accept and reject on the diff instead of copying hunks out of scrollback and hoping I landed in the right line. Terminal agents can be powerful, and I still open them, but for reading code and reviewing edits the editor UI costs me less attention than a separate stream of text.

The opinion that changed how I use Cursor

I used to treat these tools as a model choice: pick the smartest name and tolerate whatever shell wrapped it. After a few months I think Cursor is betting that supervision is the bottleneck. The model can draft a refactor in seconds; I still spend the real minutes deciding whether line 240 belongs in the diff, whether a renamed prop broke a test file, and whether the agent touched a folder I told it to avoid. Cursor puts that work in the editor: inline accept/reject, a side panel tied to my selection, and Composer runs where I can see which paths moved. Claude Code in the terminal is betting on long-running agent sessions, reusable skills, and checklists the model re-reads when the work is closer to running a workflow than staring at a hunk in context.

Both bets are real. I default to Cursor because my day is mostly reading unfamiliar code and merging small, reviewable hunks, not running a forty-step workflow from a prompt file. When I need the workflow, I still open Claude Code. When I need a fast patch in git, I still open Aider. The choice is which part of the job you are optimizing.

How the platforms are actually built (and where they rub)

Cursor is a VS Code fork, which matters more than "same layout as before." The language server, extensions, debugger, and terminal stay wired the way they already were on my machine, so the AI layer sits on top of the same jump-to-definition and breakpoint habits I had before I paid for a subscription. Inside that shell Cursor splits work into three modes I had to learn on purpose: chat for questions with whatever I highlighted, inline edits for one hunk with accept/reject in the buffer, and Composer for multi-file passes. I wasted time early on by leaving chat open for jobs that belonged in Composer, because chat is great for explanation and easy to overuse for edits that span four files. Composer 2.5 has been good enough on routine refactors and test stubs that I stopped opening a separate premium chat for chores, and the subscription keeps the model in the same app as the repo. That sounds small until you count how often you used to re-attach context in another window.

Where Cursor falls short matches that same bet. Rules and skills in .cursor/rules files work for basics like "use our logger" and "do not touch generated protos," but the agent still ignored a rule until I pasted it again, and the docs lag behind what I found in Claude Code. I wrote more about freezes and crashes in my Cursor review. My read: Cursor spent its calories on the edit-and-review loop. Project guardrails are still less portable and forceful than in a terminal agent that lives in one long session. That annoys me when I want portable rules the agent actually obeys; it does not change my call when I want to ship a reviewed diff before lunch.

Claude Code in the terminal feels built for orchestration first. I got clearer examples for chaining skills, sharing them across repos, and pulling installs from a skills marketplace that is farther along than what I have found for Cursor. The session wants to stay open: you steer, it runs tools, it comes back with output you interpret in scrollback. That is strong when I am setting up how the agent should behave across a team repo. It is weaker for me on an ordinary afternoon of edits across files I already have open in tabs, because every hunk still ends with me flipping to the editor to see whether the quoted line numbers match reality, and long scrollback makes it easier to approve something I only half read.

Aider is a patch machine in a repo. You name files (or let it discover them within bounds), it proposes a diff, and you say yes or no in the loop. I like that clarity when the change is small and I know the paths cold. When the pass sprawls across many files I am still doing bookkeeping—scrollback, tab flipping, and mental map from patch text to buffers—that Cursor's Composer shows me as a set of touched paths in one run. I reach for Aider when git discipline is the point.

Codex-style CLI tools and similar one-shot commands sit at the other end: fine for a quick script, a single-file fix, or kicking off work from the shell when nobody is sitting in an IDE. I do not live there for the kind of day where I ask follow-ups, reject one bad line, and ask again, because there is no persistent diff surface tied to the tree.

Review is the product (why the UI wins my hours)

People reduce UI tools to "fewer clicks." Review is the product. Inline accept/reject works like a normal code review for me: I see the hunk in context, reject one bad line, and keep going. In the terminal I scroll through prose and patch blocks, jump to the editor to check whether line 240 still matches what the agent quoted, and lose the thread when the session runs long. I merge more confidently when I supervise in the buffer instead of mentally mapping terminal output onto open tabs.

Cursor's Composer mode is where that shows up on multi-file work. Bigger passes take longer when the tool reads many paths, which makes sense because I can watch which files it touched instead of reconstructing that from a patch summary at the bottom of a terminal. I trust the model the same amount. I have a better place to catch it when it drifts.

When I still use the CLI

I reach for the terminal for SSH into a box, kicking off a script, wiring something into CI, or running a headless agent where nobody is sitting in an IDE. I also keep Claude Code installed when I am tuning skills or rules I want to reuse across repos, even though Cursor is what I open first for edits. Those cases are about control and automation, and a UI-first tool does not replace them.

Would I tell you to default to the UI?

Yes, if your day looks like mine: lots of reading code, small questions, multi-file edits, and careful review before merge. Pick Cursor—or any serious VS Code–class fork with inline diffs—if catching bad hunks is what slows you down. Pick Claude Code if repeatable agent workflows and shared skills are what slow you down. Pick Aider if you want a patch loop with git at the center and you will name your files.

Cursor still freezes on me sometimes, and I have had the agent ignore a rule until I pasted it again. Those problems are real. They also fit a product that spent more on the review surface than on portable rules and skills, and I still open it first when I am actually changing the codebase.

I keep terminal agents in the toolbox for skills setup, scripts, and remote boxes. For the hours when supervision is the job, the UI is what I reach for first.