Coding

TL;DR SpaceX filed a $60 billion all-stock acquisition of Cursor on June 16, 2026 - marking one of the largest AI/developer tools acquisitions ever (confirmed via SEC filing) Cursor’s revenue metrics are impressive: ~$4 billion annualized revenue with $2.6 billion from enterprise customers, suggesting strong product-market fit Strategic pivot: SpaceX is moving beyond rockets and satellites into the software infrastructure layer that powers AI development itself Signal to the market: This acquisition suggests major tech companies are betting heavily on owning the entire stack - from hardware to the tools developers use to build AI systems Enterprise focus: The majority of Cursor’s revenue coming from enterprise (65%) indicates this is a B2B infrastructure play, not just a consumer developer tool Why SpaceX Acquiring Cursor Matters On the surface, it might seem odd that a company known for rockets and space exploration would acquire an AI code editor. But this acquisition reveals something fundamental about how the largest technology companies are thinking about AI development infrastructure. ...

The “is the software engineer dead” genre has been running long enough that you can predict most of the takes before you read them. The interesting interviews are the ones where the person being interviewed is in a position to know something the rest of us do not. Boris Cherny, the creator of Claude Code at Anthropic, is one of those people. Sky News got him in front of three charts and asked him to react. ...

TL;DR Start with What Actually Belongs in My AI Dev Stack in 2026 - the canonical stack essay Then An AI Tooling Learning Path - phased skill-building order Deep dives below cover comparisons and spec-driven workflows; single-tool posts are briefs, not entry points Canonical essays What Actually Belongs in My AI Dev Stack in 2026 An AI Tooling Learning Path: Logical Phases for 2026 Context Engineering - the production skill behind reliable coding agents Spec-Driven Development - when the brief becomes the product Deep dives Claude Code vs Cursor: A 6-Month Comparison GitHub Spec Kit and Spec-Driven Development GitHub Spec Kit in 2026: SDD Goes Mainstream My AI-Augmented Design Workflow When to Fine-Tune vs When to RAG Briefs (moment-in-time) These are useful snapshots, not the starting point: ...

TL;DR Composer 2.5 is Cursor’s most capable in-house coding model yet, built on Moonshot’s open-source Kimi K2.5 checkpoint with about 85% of total training compute spent on Cursor’s own continued pretraining and RL The model is purpose-built for the agent loop inside Cursor - long-horizon tasks, hundreds of tool calls, multi-step instructions - rather than as a general-purpose chat model Cursor claims parity with Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 on its own CursorBench v3.1 (63.2%) and a strong 79.8% on SWE-Bench Multilingual Pricing is dramatically lower: $0.50 / $2.50 per million input/output tokens on the default variant, with included usage doubled for the first week Together with SpaceXAI, Cursor is now training a much larger successor model from scratch on Colossus 2 with around 10x the compute - so 2.5 is a waypoint, not the endgame For a while, Cursor was an IDE wrapped around someone else’s models - Claude, GPT, Gemini. That story has shifted. With Composer 2.5, released this week, Cursor has shipped its most capable first-party coding model yet, and it is a serious enough piece of work that it deserves real consideration as a daily driver rather than a budget fallback. ...

TL;DR After six months of daily use, neither Cursor nor Claude Code wins outright - they represent two distinct philosophies that complement each other in a hybrid workflow Cursor’s strength is deep IDE integration: seamless codebase indexing, best-in-class multi-file Composer Mode, and zero context switching for feature development and UI work Claude Code’s strength is agentic execution: it runs tests, reads output, fixes code, and loops until passing - ideal for debugging, test-driven fixes, and housekeeping tasks The real winner underlying both tools is the Claude 4 family (Sonnet 4.6 for most work, Opus 4.7 for the harder agentic loops); the choice of tool determines how you interact with that intelligence, not which intelligence you get The practical split: use Cursor as your primary environment for feature work, use Claude Code when you need something to just run and fix itself It’s been six months since the landscape of AI coding tools shifted from “helpful autocomplete” to “autonomous agents.” During this time, I’ve used both Cursor and Claude Code (Anthropic’s CLI tool) for every major project. ...