I Switched to Cursor AI Code Editor — Honest Review After 2 Months

VS Code was set up exactly how I wanted — my extensions, my keybindings, dark theme the way I like it. Every time Cursor came up in a dev group I was in, I'd scroll past. Tools that get hyped that hard usually let you down after a week.

Then a friend who does React work kept sending me screenshots. Not marketing screenshots — his actual screen, mid-coding, with Cursor completing full functions from a comment. I got annoyed enough to install it.

That was two months ago. VS Code hasn't opened since.

Cursor is a fork of VS Code. Not an extension, the actual editor. Your extensions, keybindings, and settings all carry over. I imported my VS Code settings and it took about 10 minutes before the editor felt like mine.

This is what makes it different from GitHub Copilot or pasting code into a browser tab. The AI is built into where you're already working, not somewhere you have to go separately.

I'd used GitHub Copilot before. The difference is hard to describe until you feel it. Copilot completes the current line. Cursor seems to understand what the function is supposed to do based on everything around it.

I was writing a data fetching function and it completed the error handling, the loading state logic, and the return format — correctly — before I'd typed any of it. Not a guess. It had read the component and matched the pattern I was already using.

After a week I caught myself pausing mid-condition expecting Cursor to finish it. Normal autocomplete started feeling empty. That shift happened faster than I expected.

Not in writing big new features — in the boring glue work. Adding a loading state to a component that didn't have one. Copying a form validation pattern from one place to another. Renaming props. TypeScript errors that are tedious but not hard.

That work breaks flow. It's not difficult but it's constant. Cursor handles it fast enough that I stopped dreading it.

I once accepted 12 lines of autocomplete for an API error handler without reading carefully. It looked right. It had a variable name that didn't match what I'd named it in the existing code — a small inconsistency that only surfaced in testing. Now I read diffs before accepting anything that touches logic.

There's a panel where you can talk to Claude or GPT-4 with your actual code already loaded. Select a function, ask a question, the model answers in the context of your file.

Half the friction of AI-assisted coding is the copy-paste loop between your editor and a browser tab. This removes it. Sounds minor, isn't.

The free tier limit. You get a monthly cap on fast completions. Hit it mid-project and everything slows down noticeably. For daily work, you'll likely need to pay eventually.

The confidence is also a problem. Cursor suggests wrong things with the same energy it suggests right things. The autocomplete will complete a dozen lines that look completely reasonable and have one subtle logic error buried in the middle. You need to actually read what it does — not just whether it compiles.

It pushes you toward moving fast, and fast can mean careless. I built a habit of reading diffs the way I'd review someone else's PR. Before that habit formed, I merged some changes I shouldn't have.

Autocomplete on by default for small things. For big changes, I ask the chat to explain the plan first, then make edits in pieces I can review individually. Never let it rewrite a whole file in one go.

When I ask a question, I point it at nearby files explicitly. It's better when you tell it exactly what context matters instead of expecting it to figure out the whole codebase.

Beginners — try it, but slowly. Ask it to explain before you accept. If you only accept output you don't understand, you'll move fast for two weeks and then hit a wall in an interview or exam where there's no AI in the room.

For a small React feature, I start by opening the files I know are relevant, then I ask Cursor chat to summarize how the existing component works. If that summary is wrong, I stop there. A bad summary means the model does not have the right context yet.

Next I ask for a plan, not code: "Add this feature using the existing component style. List the files you would change and the smallest sequence of edits." Only after that do I let it write code in one file at a time.

The final step is manual. I read the diff, run the page, and check the behavior myself. Cursor can speed up the middle of the work, but it should not own the final judgment.

• "Explain this component first. Do not suggest changes until I ask."
• "Make the smallest possible change to add this behavior. Do not refactor unrelated code."
• "Before editing, list the assumptions you are making about the data shape and props."

Cursor once generated a clean-looking state update that worked for the happy path and broke when the list was empty. The code looked normal enough that I almost missed it. That taught me to test edge cases, not just whether the page loads.

Another time it used a helper from a different part of the project because the name looked similar. The import compiled, but the helper expected a different data shape. That kind of error is exactly why AI-generated code needs a real review.

My rule now is simple: autocomplete is fine for obvious boilerplate. Anything that changes data, auth, payments, routing, or persistence gets reviewed like a pull request.

Worth switching if you code regularly. The settings import is fast and you can go back if it doesn't work for you — nothing is lost.

The free tier is enough to form a real opinion. Try it on a side project first if you don't want to risk your main setup. I wish I'd switched six months earlier, but I also understand why people resist it. The hype made me distrust it longer than I should have.

• Is Cursor good for beginners? Yes, if you ask it to explain before it fixes. It is risky if you only accept code without reading it.
• Is Cursor better than Copilot? For my workflow, yes. Cursor feels more aware of nearby files and project context.
• Do you need the paid plan? Not to test it. If you use it daily for work, the free limit will probably become annoying.
• Should you replace learning with Cursor? No. Use it like a fast assistant, not like a substitute for understanding code.