Gå til innhold

IDEs & Editors

The AI-powered text editors of tomorrow.

IDEs Experience & Sentiment

Cursor has a dominant awareness lead, with 82.2% of respondents having used it or heard of it, versus just 54.1% for runner-up Zed.

When looking at freeform comments left about Cursor, it seems like the main issue is actually its price, indicating that the market might have room for a cheaper alternative.

Gruppér etter:

Sorter etter:

33.1%
48.5%
17.8%
4,018
17.3%
36.3%
45.9%
4,009
7.5%
26.1%
65.9%
4,014
10.3%
88.9%
4,012

Erfaring

  • Brukt det: Respondents who have used an item.
  • Hørt om det: Respondents who have heard about an item, but haven't used it.
  • Aldri hørt om det: Respondents who have never heard about an item.

Oppfatning

  • Positiv: Respondenter som er interessert i å lære mer om en teknologi; eller er villige til å bruke den igjen.
  • Nøytral: Respondenter som hadde en nøytral oppfatning av en teknologi.
  • Negativ: Respondenter som ikke er interessert i å lære mer om en teknologi; eller har brukt den og hatt en negativ opplevelse.
💡
Du kan trykke på enhver teknologi for å se ekstra detaljer, og ta et dypdykk inn i dataen.

Other IDEs

What other IDEs are you currently using?
Fritekstformat
Multiple
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
13

Andre svar

Svar som matcher “Andre svar” 132
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
% besvarelser på spørsmål

Number of Items

How many items in this category respondents have used.

0%
12%
23%
35%
47%
58%
1

0

2,436
2

1

1,243
3

2

396
4

3

98
5

4

8
0%
12%
23%
35%
47%
58%
% av deltagere i undersøkelsen

IDEs Pain Points

Context & memory limitations were the main thing currently preventing web developers from using dedicated IDEs to code, followed by too many intrusive suggestions as well as the high cost associated with AI IDEs.

Which pain points have you encountered when using AI-focused IDEs and editors?
Fritekstformat
Multiple
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1

Context & memory limitations

2

Intrusive or distracting suggestions

3

High monetary cost

4

Poor generated code quality

5

Poor UI/UX

6

Hallucination & inaccuracies

7

Lack of codebase awareness

8

Slow response time

9

Bad at modifying code

10

Cursor issues

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
% besvarelser på spørsmål