The question is not “which editor is better.” The useful question is: with which flow does your team deliver faster without degrading quality or losing control of the context.
Guided practical case
Full-stack team of 10 people evaluating editor standard for 6 months. They need:
- fast onboarding,
- shared AI rules,
- consistent code reviews,
- low switching cost between projects.
Operational comparison
VSCode stands out when:
- you already have a robust ecosystem of extensions,
- you need stability and corporate compatibility,
- you prioritize traditional tooling (debuggers, tasks, devcontainers).
Cursor highlights when:
- the team uses prompts/context as part of the daily workflow,
- you need multi-file assisted refactors with high frequency,
- you want project rules to guide AI suggestions.
Recommended equipment policy
Don’t force monoculture. Defines workflow standard, not brand:
- shared rules of context and style,
- PR template with evidence of changes suggested by AI,
- CI validations that do not depend on the editor.
Example of technical guardrail in TypeScript (simplified internal lint rule):
export function rejectUnsafeAny(code: string): boolean {
return !code.includes(": any") && !code.includes(" as any");
}The idea: if an IA suggestion violates standards, CI blocks it even if it comes from any editor.
Actionable checklist
- Define AI rules per repository (prompts, context, security)
- Standardize format/lint/test in CI as source of truth
- Measure real impact: cycle time, post-merge defects, rework
- Create dual onboarding (VSCode and Cursor) with the same flow
- Review stack cost vs productivity monthly
Happy reading! ☕
Comments