The Evolution of AI-Assisted Development Through a Developer’s Journey

Yesterday

Remember when we thought GitHub Copilot was revolutionary? That feels like ancient history now. The AI coding landscape is evolving so fast that what seemed cutting-edge six months ago now feels like training wheels. This is the story of how I went from being a happy Cursor user to becoming a Claude Code evangelist — and why I’m gladly paying 5 times more for the privilege.

The Cursor Era: When Tab Was Magic

Like many developers at Whiteprompt, I jumped on the Cursor bandwagon early. The promise was simple: VS Code, but with AI superpowers. And honestly? It delivered. That first time I hit Tab and watched Cursor complete an entire function based on context — that was my “okay, the future is here” moment.

For months, Cursor was my daily driver. The workflow was smooth:

Open project in familiar VS Code interface
Let AI suggest completions
Use Composer (now Agent) for bigger changes
Ship code faster than ever

Life was good. I was moving fast, writing less boilerplate, and feeling like I had a competent junior developer looking over my shoulder. When they released the agentic mode, things got even better. I could describe what I wanted, and Cursor would make multi-file changes.

But then something interesting happened.

The Turning Point: When Speed Isn’t Everything

During a conversation with other developers, someone mentioned they were using different AI editors. My first thought was, “Why would anyone leave Cursor?” But curiosity got the better of me, and I decided to give Claude Code a try.

I started with a pay-per-use API key, and immediately noticed two things:

My credits were disappearing faster than free pizza at a hackathon
Claude Code was approaching problems completely differently

While Cursor would eagerly jump into implementation — often producing working code quickly — Claude Code would… think. It would plan. It would break down the problem into logical steps.

At first, this felt slower. But then I realized something crucial:

Claude Code wasn’t just coding faster — it was coding better.

The $100 Question: Is Claude Code Worth 5x the Price?

Let’s talk money, because that’s what made me pause too. Cursor is $20/month. Claude Max (which includes Claude Code) is $100/month. That’s not a trivial difference.

But here’s what I discovered after burning through $15 of API credits in a single session and having my “this better be worth it” moment: the value proposition isn’t about cost per line of code. It’s about what you can accomplish.

“At $100/month for Claude Max, I’m getting 10x the results. It’s not even a close comparison anymore.”

With the Max plan, I have essentially unlimited access to Claude Code. No more watching the token counter. No more stopping mid-flow because I’m worried about costs. Just pure, uninterrupted productivity.

The Workflow That Changed Everything

Here’s my current setup, and it might sound weird at first: I use Claude Code inside Cursor.

Yes, you read that right. I run Claude Code in a terminal within Cursor, and it’s great. This inception-style workflow gives me the best of both worlds:

Claude Code’s superior planning and execution for the heavy work
Cursor’s familiar interface for reviewing changes
Quick edits with Cursor for small tasks when Claude Code is busy

It may sound strange, but it makes reviewing code changes from Claude much easier. I occasionally use Cursor for small tasks, but the heavy lifting stays in Claude Code.

My typical workflow now looks like this:

For Complex Tasks:

Claude Code excels here. It breaks down the problem, creates a todo list, and methodically works through each step. The Sequential Thinking MCP has been a game-changer for tackling complex problems. Claude Code remains in control with this method, orchestrating the entire process.

For Quick Edits:

Still use Cursor Agent (mostly because Claude Code is already busy with something else)
Perfect for those “just change this variable name across files” moments
Cursor is no longer the driver for me — it’s the backup

The Power of the Terminal

One thing that really stands out with Claude Code is how naturally it operates in a terminal environment. Even before installing any MCPs, it can already act in the world via CLI commands. When Claude Code needs to:

Run tests
Check git status
Install dependencies
Execute build commands

It just… does it. While Cursor can also do this, it feels much more natural to run commands in a terminal environment than through an interactive UI. This might just be my personal preference on the UX, but it makes a real difference in how smooth the workflow feels.

It’s operating in its native environment, understanding the output, adapting the approach, and continuing toward the goal — all without breaking your flow.

The MCP Ecosystem: Expanding the Possible

What really sealed the deal for me was discovering MCPs (Model Context Protocol). With Claude Code, I can now access a wide range of external services directly from my terminal. It’s not just about coding anymore — it’s about having a command center for development.

The Sequential Thinking MCP in particular has been transformative. It helps break down hard problems into smaller steps, which Claude Code tracks beautifully with its internal todo list. This isn’t just about writing code faster — it’s about thinking through problems more systematically.

Since making the switch, I’ve built entire features with Claude Code’s help. It’s sped up my use of everyday CLI tools and opened up possibilities I hadn’t even considered before.

Context Control: Different Philosophies

There’s a misconception that Cursor gives you precise control while Claude Code just “figures it out.” That’s not totally true. Claude Code supports the @ symbol for selecting files and folders, just like Cursor.

The difference is in the philosophy:

Cursor: “Show me exactly what to look at”
Claude Code: “Let me explore and understand your codebase”

Both approaches have merit, but I’ve found Claude Code’s exploratory approach often surfaces connections and dependencies I wouldn’t have thought to include.

An interesting discovery: you can integrate Claude Code in Cursor. It might sound strange, but it makes reviewing code changes from Claude much easier. This hybrid approach has become my secret weapon.

Real Talk: The Frustrations and Limitations

Let’s talk about what frustrated me. Cursor at the $20 price point feels like it’s pushing for cost optimization above all else, leaving me with poor results. I only really noticed this after spending $15 of on-demand credits with Claude Code and realizing that it would be worth it to just get the Max plan for pretty much unlimited access.

The contrast was stark. Where Cursor seemed to be holding back, Claude Code was going all-in on quality.

Claude Code limitations:

No screenshot support (it’s all text, but you can still paste images)
Still requires terminal comfort (not for everyone)
The initial cost shock is real

Cursor’s main issue:

At $20/month, it feels like it’s optimizing for cost savings
Results often lack the depth and quality of Claude Code
Can be too eager to implement without full understanding

The Advice I Wish I’d Gotten Earlier

If you’re trying to choose between them, here’s my advice: Try them out.

That’s it. That’s the advice.

I stayed with Cursor for too long simply because I wasn’t exploring enough. This space is moving so fast that what was best last month might not be best today.

Don’t get stuck in analysis paralysis reading reviews and comparisons. The only way to know which tool fits your workflow is to actually use them on real projects.

The Evolution Continues: Sonnet 4 and Beyond

Since I made the switch, things have only gotten better. The release of Sonnet 4 took Claude Code to another level. The results I’m getting now are even more impressive than when I first made the jump.

I’ve experimented with different MCPs too. While the task master AI MCP didn’t quite fit my workflow yet (it spent too many credits in the planning phase and acted strangely when following task goals), the Sequential Thinking MCP has become essential. It helps break down hard problems into smaller steps, which Claude Code tracks beautifully with its internal todo list.

There’s still room for exploration — I haven’t even tried features like Cursor’s YOLO mode yet. But honestly? I haven’t needed to. The current workflow is delivering so well that I’m focused on building rather than tweaking.

Where This Is All Heading

Call it “vibe coding” or AI-assisted development — the label doesn’t matter. What’s undeniable is that my productivity has increased dramatically. Having an on-demand thought partner that can actually execute on ideas has made coding more enjoyable than ever.

The tools will keep evolving. IDEs will adopt more agentic features. Terminal-based tools will get better UIs. But right now, today, the combination of Claude Code with MCPs represents the cutting edge of what’s possible.

Testing remains just as important in this new world. The difference is that now I have a partner who can help write those tests, run them, understand the failures, and iterate on solutions. It’s not about removing the fundamentals — it’s about doing them better and faster.

The Bottom Line

Yes, I’m paying 5x more for Claude Code than Cursor. No, I’m not going back.

Claude Code has become a powerful addition to my toolbox that I don’t want to live without. The productivity gains, the quality improvements, and the sheer joy of having a truly capable AI partner make it worth every penny.

My biggest regret? I was only with Cursor for a long time because I wasn’t exploring enough. This space is moving incredibly fast, and it’s worth trying new tools as they emerge.

My advice? Stop reading reviews and start experimenting. The best tool is the one that makes you more productive, and in this fast-moving space, that might change every few months.

Welcome to the future of development. It’s weird, it’s expensive, and it’s absolutely incredible.

Source: www.medium.com