Unpopular, controversial take: there should be an LSP extension that lets CLI agents, like Claude Code show diffs in the editor, and also one for completions, and sending snippets back to the CLI.
That, by itself, would obliterate the entire value of Windsurf or Cursor or whatever. The fact that Google has this kind of money and spends it on dubious "talent" (though none of these people are known in the community) is a testament to how overfunded tech companies are compared to the value that they provide.
This already exists via MCP
> For other IDEs: The protocol is editor-agnostic. Any editor that can run a WebSocket server and implement the MCP tools can integrate with Claude Code.
https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/1234 https://github.com/coder/claudecode.nvim/blob/da78309eaa2ca2...
Example in Emacs, this is how I use claude-code: https://github.com/manzaltu/claude-code-ide.el
This is great!
Claude Code can already show diffs in JetBrains IDEs and VSCode ('/ide' command connects the CLI/TUI to plugin/extension running in the IDE-side).
It can also access the IDEs' real-time errors and warnings, not just compile output ('ideDiagnostics' tool), see your active editor selection, cursor position, etc.
"overfunded" is a weird way to talk about a tech company that is incredibly profitable.
It is known there were many developers without really much work to do that were hired only to be denied to competitors. Maybe it was cleaned up in the meantime
It's fair to suggest a different word or phrasing, but you're coming off as hostile, not constructive.
Revenue is a funding source. Companies with too much money sometimes made really dumb decisions with that money.
The fact that one division of Google is wildly profitable does not exempt other parts of the company from criticism of their financially dubious choices.
Net profit can't be used as a measure of both "funding" and "value generation" while saying that a company is "overfunded" because it doesn't provide enough "value". Come back to your senses.
I'm genuinely not sure if you're not understanding, or deliberately ignoring my point.
I'll assume the former and try again. Maybe you didn't realize I'm not the person you originally replied to?
If a company is profitable, they have funds. The funds generated by the profits, can be used to fund additional internal projects. If the bucket of funds from profits gets ridiculously large, then it may begin to be used for vanity projects, like gutting an AI company, or building a gold statue of the founder. It seems reasonable to call companies spending on mostly-useless excesses "overfunded".
I'm not misunderstanding anything. It's just that the idea of a massively profitable company being labeled "over-funded" when excess profit is used in a way that you find disagreeable is stupid. It doesn't matter how well they allocate their revenue.
Stop looking at the entire world through the eyes of VC, because it doesn't work.
You're not funding google by paying for youtube, you're buying a service.
You didn't "overfund" your pizza shop that hired a stripper for friday night vibes, and neither did 99.99% of customers that paid google for their service offerings.
You just bought a pizza. Put down the VC podcasts
Gotcha, you're just being mean. You've got a bone to pick with VCs, I guess, so you've declared I listen to VC podcasts, see the world like one, and am using a stupid idiom.
That's fine. I'm going to continue referring to corporations that blow lots of money on random intra-industry dick measuring matches because they can as "overfunded", and you can continue expressing your opinion to anyone who will listen that this one person on the internet used an idiom that you think is dumb because it implies something other than "that person profited, therefore they did something right and therefore whatever they do with that money is correct and intelligent and never ever wasteful or dumb."
> That, by itself, would obliterate the entire value of Windsurf or Cursor or whatever.
Have used Cursor and I know that there is quite a bit of value between the model and the chat input box and it will be similar to Claude Code or Codex, it's what makes this agentic, it's just accessed through a different interface. So from that perspective, Cursor makes sense for folks that are already in the VSCode environment.
On the contrary, I'm already in the VSCode environment and I would hate to have to switch to Cursor. Doesn't matter that it is a fork, I don't want a fork for every extension of my workflow. I used Cline and now Claude code integrated to VSCode, and I don't think I'm missing much by not switching to Cursor.
I symlinked my vscode settings into the cursor config directory and the transition was strictly additive; everything worked exactly the same as before, with two exceptions so far: a .NET extension wasn't supported, and Cursor recently forced a switch to their own version of Pyright (but that seemed like an improvement once the type checker diagnostics were tamed a little).
Except the Windsurf team is already moving in that direction...
Windsurf is the first company that moved from IDE to training and trained good models. Unfortunately in code good models are not enough to win against claude 4. Any wrapper constraining the model is also doomed to fail.
Unpopular, controversial take...
Could you please avoid juicing a random comment this way?