I've been using AI coding assistants for a while now. Started with Copilot, moved to Cursor, tried Roo, experimented with Windsurf. They all promised to revolutionize how we code. But after months of fighting with configurations, learning shortcuts, and debugging integrations, I found myself spending more time managing the tools than actually coding.
Then I tried Claude Code. And everything changed.
The Beauty of Simplicity
Here's what nobody tells you about those VSCode extensions and forks: they're adding layers of complexity that often get in your way. With Cursor and Roo, you're constantly dealing with accepting changes, learning their specific diff views, remembering keyboard shortcuts, figuring out their context management and code indexing.
I remember spending an entire Saturday just trying to understand how Cursor's context indexing worked. Was it including the right files? Why wasn't it seeing my updated code? The invisible complexity was killing my productivity.
Claude Code strips all that away. It's literally just you writing a prompt. That's it.
No diffs to accept. No shortcuts to memorize. No mysterious context windows. Just write what you want and Claude Code handles it. I still use VSCode when I want to edit files directly, or I'll write longer prompts in markdown files and tell Claude to read them. But the tool itself? It gets out of the way.
Battle-Tested Tools vs Shiny New Things
One of my biggest frustrations with VSCode extensions was dealing with MCPs (Model Context Protocol integrations). Take the Postgres MCP for example. I spent hours trying to get it working with Cursor. It needed specific Node settings, couldn't read my existing .env files, required npx runner configurations. Even when it worked, it felt fragile.
With Claude Code? It just started using psql when it needed to. You know, the tool that's been around for decades and just works. Same with GitHub integration. While I was fumbling with GitHub MCPs in other tools, Claude Code just uses the gh CLI. These aren't sexy new abstractions. They're boring, reliable tools that have been refined by thousands of developers over years.
The CI Debugging Story That Sold Me
Here's the moment I knew I was done with VSCode extensions. I had this infuriating CI issue where tests were passing locally but failing in GitHub Actions. Spent hours with Cursor trying to debug it. Even with their massive context windows, I was manually copying logs back and forth, searching for working GitHub integrations, getting nowhere.
This happened to be happening on the day Claude 4 was announced and Claude Code hit 1.0. I knew it was powerful but I had spent $30 in API tokens when I tried it a few weeks earlier with Claude 3.7 and decided to put exploring it on hold until I got better at prompting or the price was more predictable. Fast forward to picking it back up, within 30 minutes & Claude 4, it had solved the issue.
How? It used gh CLI to pull the actual CI logs, ran the tests locally with the same environment variables, compared the outputs side by side, and identified a timezone difference that only showed up in CI. No manual copying. No broken integrations. Just standard CLI tools doing what they do best.
Manual Context Management: The Feature Nobody Talks About
Here's something I've discovered that completely changed how I work: manual context management is actually better than automatic. I know that sounds counterintuitive when everyone's bragging about million-token context windows, but hear me out.
With Claude Code, I decide when to start fresh sessions and when to continue. I use the compact command to manage context. I'm writing technical plans to end the session and start a new one. Most importantly, I'm breaking big problems down into small, manageable pieces of work. This isn't some new AI technique. It's the same skill good engineers have been honing for decades. The difference is Claude Code lets me apply it naturally giving me the minimal tools I need to do the job instead of fighting against automatic context management.
It reminds me of the golden days of Twitter when people had to craft their tweets into a character limit. There was a beauty to that constraint. You had to make each word and even letter count. The same principle applies here. When you're conscious of your context, you communicate more clearly. You think before you prompt. You get better results. You can do this in other tools, but Claude Code is optimized for it.
The result? I've never hit the MAX context limit. Not once.
Why? Because I'm not dumping my entire codebase into every conversation. I'm having focused discussions with exactly the context needed. When I'm done with one problem, I start fresh with the next. It's like the difference between a cluttered desk where you can't find anything and a clean workspace where you bring out exactly what you need.
This also means each conversation costs less and stays more focused. The AI isn't wading through thousands of irrelevant lines trying or some index to understand what you want. It's laser-focused on the specific problem with the specific context you provided.
The Permission System Is a Killer Feature
When people ask about Claude Code, they often mention "wider CLI permissions" like it's a security concern. They're missing the point entirely. The permission system is one of its best features.
You can run in planning mode where it can't execute anything. Or you can set granular permissions in a session like:
"Bash(gh run list:*)"
"Bash(gh run view:*)"
"Bash(cat:*)"
"Bash(grep:./src/**)"
Or you can go full YOLO mode with --dangerously-skip-permissions when you're in a trusted environment, know it's on track and just need to move fast.
The key is you control it session by session. You're not trusting some opaque system to manage security for you. You know exactly what Claude can and can't do because you set the boundaries.
The Model-Switching Trap
In Cursor, when Claude 3.7 couldn't solve something, I'd switch to Gemini and suddenly it worked. This felt like a feature but was actually a bug. It's like the old days when Chrome would silently fix your broken JavaScript while IE would throw errors. You'd think IE was wrong, but it was actually exposing your bad code.
Model-switching adds layers of non-determinism. Did it work because Gemini understood my prompt? Was my context too big? Too small? You never know what actually fixed it.
With Claude Code, I stick to Claude 4. When something fails, I know it's my prompt that needs work. No model shopping, no uncertainty. Just like how IE forced us to write cleaner JavaScript, using one model forces me to write clearer prompts.
Focus on What Matters: Learning to Prompt
Perhaps the biggest shift was realizing I could stop learning tools and start learning the model and optimize for it. Instead of bouncing between different prompt libraries, techniques for different models, and platform-specific tricks, I'm just reading the official Anthropic docs and getting better at communicating with Claude.
It's remarkable how much better my results got when I stopped fighting with tool interfaces and started focusing on clear, effective prompting.
Predictable Pricing That Actually Makes Sense
With API-based tools, I was constantly anxious about costs. One complex debugging session could spike my bill unexpectedly. With Claude Code, I know I'm spending $100-200 a month. That's it. No surprises. No watching token counters. Just a predictable cost for a tool I use every day.
The Bottom Line
Claude Code isn't trying to reimagine how we code. It's not adding AI-powered diff views or intelligent context management or smart acceptance flows. It's doing something much more radical: it's getting out of the way.
After months of experimenting, I've stopped investigating other tools. I'm not interested in the latest VSCode extension or the newest coding assistant. I have a simple tool that lets me leverage Claude's capabilities without any friction.
Sometimes the best interface is no interface. Sometimes the most powerful feature is simplicity. And sometimes, the future of coding isn't about adding more abstractions. It's about removing them.
If you're tired of fighting with your AI coding tools, maybe it's time to try something simpler. Your future self might thank you.
Have you tried Claude Code? What's been your experience with AI coding assistants? Drop your thoughts in the comments below!
Writing process note: This post was created through an AI-assisted interview process in about 30 minutes. Two years ago this post would have taken me an entire weekend to write. I used Claude to ask me targeted questions about my experience with Claude Code, then worked with it to structure my responses into a cohesive narrative. The opinions and experiences are entirely my own; Claude helped me articulate them clearly and organize them into a readable format.
Top comments (0)