Cursor vs. Windsurf: I Was Wrong, Their 'Souls' Are Completely Different

AI IDECursorWindsurfDev ToolsMarkdownMDXWorkflowIan Chou

Table of Contents

Preface: A Beautiful Misunderstanding

As the “Warring States Period” of AI IDEs begins, as engineers, we easily fall into intuitive comparisons: “Windsurf just launched—is it stronger than Cursor? Or is Cursor 2.0 still the boss?”

I originally thought this was just another “Feature Comparison” between competitors. That was until recently, when I found myself frequently switching between heavy LangChain 1.0 development and writing technical blog posts (MDX). It was then that I realized a key fact:

It’s not a question of who is stronger; it’s that the ‘souls’ they were designed with are fundamentally different.

If you feel that coding in Cursor is satisfying, but writing documentation feels a bit “clunky,” this article might solve that puzzle for you.

1. Core Difference: The Engineer’s “Hand” vs. The Creator’s “Brain”

If I had to summarize my testing experience in one sentence:

  • Cursor was born for “Heavy Engineering.”
  • Windsurf was born for “Context & Flow.”

This isn’t to say Windsurf can’t write code or Cursor can’t write docs, but their underlying approach to “text” differs fundamentally.

Cursor’s Strength: Project Graph & Execution

Cursor acts like a senior Technical Lead. It has an astounding understanding of Python project structures, dependencies, and refactoring. When I’m developing frameworks like LangChain 1.0—which involves complex dependencies and frequent debugging/tracing—Cursor’s performance is dominant. It understands the entire Project Graph, automatically fixes Import errors, and can even “run” a piece of code and self-correct based on the error output.

Windsurf’s Strength: Syntax Trees (AST) & Context

Windsurf acts more like a meticulous Editor-in-Chief. It doesn’t just see text; it sees “structure.” This is why the experience is vastly superior when writing Markdown or MDX.

2. Why Windsurf Wins at Blogging (Technical Reveal)

Many developers (including my past self) might think: “Isn’t Markdown just plain text? Does AI handling really make a difference?”

The difference is massive.

Cursor’s Perspective: Plain Text

While Cursor 2.0 is powerful, when it processes Markdown/MDX, it essentially views it as “a string of text.” It relies on LLM probability to predict the next segment. This leads to several common pain points:

  • Breaking Structure: You modify a paragraph, and it accidentally deletes the HTML Tag below it.
  • MDX Disasters: It can’t distinguish between a JSX Component and standard text, often breaking the <Component prop={...} /> format.
  • Brute-force Rewrites: To change a single heading, it might regenerate the entire article, causing formatting to drift.

Windsurf’s Perspective: AST (Abstract Syntax Tree)

Windsurf’s “Cascade” engine seems to possess AST (Abstract Syntax Tree) understanding capabilities for Markdown/MDX. This means the AI doesn’t just see a string of words, but rather:

  • This is an H1 header.
  • This is a Code Block (content cannot be arbitrarily changed).
  • This is a React Component (syntax must remain closed).

Because it “understands syntax,” Windsurf is Content-Aware when modifying articles. It knows how to modify the text in paragraph 2 without touching the code in paragraph 3; it knows how to insert a Component without breaking the original layout.

This is why writing in Windsurf feels like the AI is “following your train of thought,” rather than “messing up your article.”

3. My “Dual-Wielding” Workflow

After understanding this fundamental difference, I no longer struggle with “choosing one.” Instead, I switch tools based on the task attribute:

🛠️ Scenario A: Developing Complex Systems (LangChain / Backend)

➡️ Choice: Cursor When I need to handle massive Python Classes, refactor entire modules, or loop through Run -> Debug -> Fix, Cursor’s automation and engineering comprehension are irreplaceable. It helps me quickly build engineering skeletons and resolve dependency issues.

📝 Scenario B: Architecture Design & Content Creation (Docs / Blog / MDX)

➡️ Choice: Windsurf When I am in the “design phase,” need to draw architecture diagrams in Markdown, write RFC documents, or compose technical blogs (especially those involving MDX Components), Windsurf is the absolute top choice. Its Cascade Flow ensures my context isn’t lost, and the generated formatting is clean and accurate.

Conclusion: The Soul of the Tool Determines its Battlefield

I previously mistook Windsurf for just another AI Editor. Now I understand that Windsurf fills the market gap for “Structured Content Co-editing.”

  • If you seek ultimate efficiency in Code Refactoring and Debugging, Cursor remains the king.
  • But if, like me, you value code readability, document structure, and writing flow, Windsurf offers an unprecedented experience.

Don’t ask which is stronger. Ask yourself: “Am I being an engineer right now, or a designer/writer?”

💡 Summary Comparison Table

FeatureCursorWindsurf
Core PositioningEngineering Oriented (Code-First)Content/Structure Oriented (Content-First)
Key StrengthsRefactor, Debug, Project GraphDesign, Docs, Markdown, MDX
Understanding of MarkdownPlain Text (Text Prediction)AST (Structural Syntax Understanding)
Modification StyleProne to brute-force rewrites & broken formatsPrecise local edits, maintains structural integrity
Best ForLangChain dev, Backend logic, DebuggingBlogging, Arch Design, Tech Docs

📝 Extension: Obsidian + AI Plugins

A concept that is similar but isn’t an IDE choice: Obsidian + AI Plugins (e.g., Text Generator).

Obsidian has a very deep understanding of Markdown, perhaps even stronger than Windsurf (since it is a markdown-first product).

You can think of Obsidian + AI plugins as:

  • Windsurf’s “Content Editing Ability” → Maxed out
  • Windsurf’s “Coding Ability” → Removed completely

This is Content Editor + AI, not an AI IDE.

If your workflow involves absolutely no code and focuses solely on writing and knowledge management, Obsidian + AI might be the purer choice.

Appendix: Deep Dive

🧠 1. Windsurf has “Deep Syntax Understanding” of Markdown

The Windsurf AI model doesn’t just see “plain text”; it sees:

Here is H1 (Article Title)
Here is H2 (Section)
Here is a code block: javascript
Here is a list: Level 1
Here is an MDX component: <Component ... />
Here is frontmatter

It has its own “Markdown AST,” and it feeds this syntax tree synchronously to the model.

🔎 This means the AI truly “comprehends” your article’s structure, rather than treating it as a “string of characters.”

Cursor completely lacks this AST layer. To Cursor, Markdown = Normal text, with no “syntax awareness.”

➡️ The result: Windsurf understands flow, hierarchy, and semantics. Cursor can only rely on the model to guess paragraph intent.

🧩 2. Windsurf performs “Content-aware diffs”

When you edit Markdown in Windsurf, the model’s modification isn’t a brute-force rewrite. Instead:

  • It changes only one paragraph.
  • It maintains syntax invariance.
  • It doesn’t mess up your original indentation, frontmatter, or components.
  • It doesn’t tamper with code block content.
  • It doesn’t accidentally delete empty lines used for visual spacing.

Why does Cursor often “rewrite the whole section”? Because: Cursor’s content modification mechanism is a plain text diff, not an AST diff.

It doesn’t know that “H2 is an H2” or “a code block is a code block,” so every time it touches Markdown, it’s like manipulating a long text file.

The result is instability, inconsistency, and edits that are often too broad.

⚙️ 3. Windsurf has “Component Awareness” for MDX

This is particularly obvious.

Windsurf sits on top of VSCode (essentially a VSCode fork) and can parse MDX elements like:

  • JSX components
  • Embedded props
  • Import / export statements
  • Fenced code blocks with language tags
  • Formatting markers affected by remark/rehype plugins

The AI truly understands the syntactic meaning of these elements.

Cursor’s support for MDX is essentially:

“A string of text mixing <Component>, markdown, and JSX.”

It understands English, but it doesn’t understand the syntax.

So you see more:

  • Unclosed tags
  • Props being randomly deleted
  • Chaos between JSX and Markdown
  • Broken list hierarchies
  • Automatic formatting failures

Windsurf almost never makes these mistakes.

🧱 4. Windsurf Cascade “Actively” Maintains Context Consistency

Cascade is particularly powerful for documentation-type content:

  • The model sees which articles you have open.
  • It knows which paragraph you are currently rewriting.
  • It automatically syncs the latest content.
  • It automatically updates the syntax tree.
  • It automatically tracks your conversational thread.

This is equivalent to the AI having a “background editorial room” that constantly ensures the context doesn’t get messy.

Cursor relies heavily on you manually copy/pasting for content writing.

✨ 5. Windsurf treats Markdown / MDX as an “Editing Target”

Cursor treats articles as “Chat Content.” Windsurf treats articles as “Editable Structured Documents.”

The difference lies in:

  • Windsurf is “Document Editor + AI”
  • Cursor is “AI Chat + Document Viewer”

So Windsurf is more like:

An Obsidian / VSCode content writer with AI

While Cursor is more like:

A code editor with no special advantage for Markdown itself.

⭐ The Shortest Summary

Windsurf is stronger at Markdown/MDX because it doesn’t use “Natural Language” to understand your article, it uses a “Syntax Tree.”

This gives it:

  • Understanding of paragraph structure
  • Mastery of article hierarchy
  • Recognition of MDX components
  • Respect for code blocks
  • No messing with areas you didn’t ask it to touch
  • More precise, stable modifications

Cursor currently cannot achieve this.

So when writing a blog, Windsurf naturally feels significantly smoother.