4 months of forcing myself to use Claude Code as my primary development tool. Here’s why I’m switching back to VS Code, and what I learned about terminal AI.

The Reality vs Promise

Promise: Seamless AI in your natural terminal environment. Reality: Constant context switching between terminal and IDE for actual code editing.

What I Expected```bash

claude “implement JWT authentication”

Files appear, tests pass, everything works

git commit -m “Add authentication”

### What Actually Happened
```bash
claude "implement JWT authentication" 
# Wait 30 seconds
# Read code in terminal (hard to parse)
# Copy-paste into VS Code to review/edit
# Realize Claude made wrong assumptions
# Back to terminal to clarify
# Repeat 3-4 times

Key friction: Terminal is terrible for reading/reviewing code. You need an IDE anyway.

GitHub Integration: The One Bright Spot

What works: Tagging @claude-code in PR comments to fix issues automatically.

Success story: Reviewer said “break down this function, add error handling” → Claude refactored perfectly in 30 minutes vs 2+ hours manual work.

Problem: 60% success rate. When it fails, you waste time explaining context an IDE would provide automatically.

MCP: Overpromised, Underdelivered

Vision: Claude pulls context from Slack, Figma, databases seamlessly. Reality: Setup complex, integrations brittle, security teams block most connections.

What I actually used: Just GitHub integration. Everything else was too much friction for minimal value.

Key insight: MCP assumes context is in external tools. 90% of context is in your IDE.

Background Commands: Cool Concept, Poor Execution

Feature: Claude works on tasks while you do other things. Problem: Complex tasks need iteration. Background execution removes human oversight.

Usage pattern:

• Month 1: Used for everything
• Month 2: Realized I was creating more work
• Month 3: Only simple tasks
• Month 4: Stopped using entirely

Insight: Best AI assistance is collaborative, not autonomous.

Team Adoption Results (5 Engineers)

• Backend engineer: Loved PR integration, hated terminal workflow
• Frontend engineer: Used VS Code extension exclusively
• Full-stack engineer: Went back to Cursor after 3 weeks
• DevOps engineer: Perfect fit for terminal-native work
• Junior engineer: Overwhelmed by command complexity

Team adoption rate: 20% (1 out of 5)

What killed adoption: Inconsistent workflows, knowledge sharing friction, onboarding complexity.

Security: The Hidden Problem

Month 1: Used freely, pasted production logs Month 2: Security asked “where is our code going?” Month 3: Legal asked about data retention Month 4: Compliance wanted audit trails

Easy mistakes:

# Accidentally shared sensitive data
claude "debug this connection issue"
# Paste connection string with credentials

# Terminal history saves everything
$ history | grep claude
# All prompts with potential secrets visible

Result: So much friction most devs stopped using it.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

Initial reaction: Cost felt too high for the productivity gains I was seeing Time saved: 4-6 hours/week (down from 8-12 initially) Primary value: GitHub PR automation Hidden cost: Workflow friction, team coordination overhead

Break-even: Saves 8 minutes/day to justify cost Reality: Initially used Claude Code for only 10% of AI interactions, VS Code for the rest

Update: After upgrading to MAX plan, cost concerns diminished significantly

Why I’m Going Back

Claude Code strengths:

• Outstanding AI quality (Sonnet 4 reasoning is genuinely impressive)
• GitHub PR integration that just works
• Terminal-native for DevOps workflows
• Access to the remarkable Opus 4 model for complex tasks

Critical weaknesses:

• Poor ergonomics for code review/editing
• Constant context switching
• Team adoption challenges
• Security complexity

The evidence: Claude Code’s most popular features are VS Code extension and GitHub web integration—both escape the terminal.

Who Should Use Claude Code

Try If:

• You live in terminal 80%+ of time
• You want GitHub PR automation
• You’re comfortable with CLI complexity
• You work solo or on terminal-heavy teams

Skip If:

• You primarily work in IDEs
• You value workflow consistency
• You work on diverse teams
• You want path of least resistance

My Current Setup (Updated)

Daily development: Cursor IDE for most coding work AI assistance: Claude Code for terminal tasks and GitHub PR automation Workflow: Using both tools together - Cursor for IDE-based AI, Claude Code for terminal/Git workflows

Why this works: Each tool excels in its native environment. Cursor provides seamless IDE integration, Claude Code handles terminal and Git operations perfectly.

Result: Combined approach gives best of both worlds - powerful AI assistance without forcing everything through the terminal.

Bottom Line (Revised)

Claude Code is genuinely impressive technology—the underlying models (especially Sonnet 4 and Opus 4) are remarkable—that works best when combined with other tools rather than used exclusively.

Key insight: Don’t force yourself into one AI tool. Use Claude Code for what it does best (terminal workflows, Git operations) and pair it with IDE-native AI tools like Cursor.

Cost perspective: MAX plan pricing makes the combined approach more viable - you’re not choosing between tools, you’re optimizing your entire AI-assisted workflow.

Recommendation: Try Claude Code alongside your current IDE AI tools. The model quality alone makes it worth exploring, and the combination often works better than either tool alone.

---

Tried Claude Code? Share your experience with terminal vs IDE workflows.