Deep Dive into Cursor... Is This the First Real AI IDE? (Part 2/2)

In Part 1, we looked under the hood of Cursor, the AI-native IDE that’s making waves for how deeply it integrates large language models into everyday development. It's not just an autocomplete engine. It's a code-aware, chat-driven, session-retaining environment that feels closer to pair programming than suggestion spam.

But now let’s get into the real question: should engineering leaders actually adopt Cursor? What are teams saying about it in practice? What kind of lift...or friction...does it introduce? And where does it break?

Here’s what I found.

Where Cursor Shines

1. Serious productivity lift (when it works)
Multiple engineers across Reddit, Hacker News, and X report that Cursor has replaced Copilot in their day-to-day workflow. It’s more interactive, remembers context better, and produces more deliberate responses. A developer working in a Python-heavy data science org noted a 30–40% time savings on tasks like writing new modules, scaffolding tests, and cleaning up legacy code.

2. Fast onboarding, low friction
Since it’s built on VS Code, the learning curve is shallow. You get the familiarity of your usual keyboard shortcuts and layout...but with added /commands and inline chat. This makes Cursor appealing to teams who want the AI boost without jumping into a brand new interface or proprietary editor.

3. More than just prompts...real refactoring power
Cursor can run multi-step edits across files, intelligently track dependencies, and explain its reasoning along the way. The structured /edit and /explain system allows for deep iterative work. One CTO called it “Copilot with a memory and a strategy.”

4. Model flexibility
Cursor lets users plug in their own OpenAI keys or use Claude, Mixtral, or other models...giving teams control over performance, cost, and privacy.

Where Cursor Falters

1. It still hallucinates
Cursor is smart, but not perfect. Developers report that it occasionally fabricates functions, misinterprets file structures, or proposes outdated patterns. One engineer posted that “it generated a working solution that failed 30% of edge cases, and looked so good I almost didn’t catch it.”

2. Performance isn’t bulletproof
When working with large monorepos or deeply nested folders, Cursor can lag. Indexing isn’t always instant. Some users reported context windows behaving inconsistently, especially when models are swapped.

3. Not free but not that expensive (for value)
Cursor Pro costs $20/month. If you’re integrating your own key from OpenAI or Anthropic, you’re also paying for token usage. For startups or hobbyists, this adds up. For teams, it requires a real budget conversation.

4. It's not always team-ready
While great for individual flow, Cursor doesn’t yet offer strong team collaboration features...like shared session history, prompt libraries, or real-time AI-in-the-loop code review. For solo or small-team work? Excellent. For a 50-person team? Still early.

AI-Enabled Nearshore Engineers: The Ultimate Competitive Edge

The future of software engineering isn’t just AI... it’s AI-powered teams. By combining AI-driven productivity with top-tier remote nearshore engineers, companies unlock exponential efficiency at a 40-60% lower cost, all while collaborating in the same time zone.

✅ AI supercharges senior engineers—faster development, fewer hires needed
✅ Nearshore talent = same time zones—real-time collaboration, no delays
✅ Elite engineering at significant savings—scale smarter, faster, better

Where It Fits (and Where It Doesn’t)

Cursor works best when:

• You’re in early-stage product development or rapid prototyping

• You want to reduce the time spent on boilerplate, refactors, or reading legacy code

• You’re exploring codebases with limited documentation

• Your developers are already AI-comfortable

It works less well when:

• You need rock-solid accuracy with minimal oversight

• You work in highly-regulated environments

• Your team is deeply embedded in JetBrains IDEs or custom in-house toolchains

• You want AI-driven collaboration at a team level

Final Take

Cursor is not a toy. It’s not a wrapper. And it’s not just another plugin.

It’s an opinionated vision of what the future of software development might look like...where the IDE is no longer passive, but generative. Where context lives across the session. Where AI becomes part of the architecture of how developers think.

Is it perfect? No. Is it worth trying? Absolutely...especially if you lead a team where velocity matters more than tradition.

The early adopters already know. Cursor may not replace your engineers. But it might make them 2x faster, and 10x more curious.

More to come…

Recommended Reads

✔️Behind Cursor’s Success: Two PMFs (Gru.ai)

✔️Cursor AI: The AI-powered code editor changing the game (Daily.dev)

✔️What I learned using CursorAI every day as an Engineer (Codeaholicguy)