Echoes: Notes & Signals by James StoneEchos

nvm zsh vs code fix

8 min read

Source

https://chatgpt.com/share/67e3e6b1-866c-800b-aac6-56e79a80e15a

Model

4o

Full chat transcript

I’m an avid user of zshell and omizsh, and right now I have nvm installed on my machine, but I’m having some issues. I use cursor IDE, it’s a fork of VS Code, and when the ancient mode tries to run a terminal, or when I use a terminal there, which is for all the internal tooling, it seems to not recognize that nvm is installed, or select the correct version. I work on multiple projects across different directories, usually opening one project at a time, so I needed to auto-select the correct node version so that it can execute the commands in each subsequent shell. I don’t know the exact way to search for this, but let’s search the web online and see are there people with zshell having issues with VS Code terminal, and if there have been, also with nvm, and if there have been, what have been some possible solutions? Is there another project to use besides nvm? I’m just using it because I’ve used it historically, but I really don’t care, but the big problem is there’s many node versions I use across my machine depending on the project, and then, or is it about configuration, or do maybe I need to go so far as to set up a bash shell for the, not for me, personally, and iTerm, hopefully, but for the cursor and VS Code to work correctly. Do you have any questions about this? If not, search the web initially and get some ideas.

ChatGPT said:

Hey Jamie, I found some key insights that relate directly to your situation with zsh, nvm, and the terminal inside Cursor (VS Code fork):

1. Why nvm often fails in VS Code terminals

nvm is a shell function, not a binary. This means it needs to be loaded in every new shell session, including ones launched by your IDE.

In zsh + VS Code or Cursor, if your terminal isn’t a login shell or interactive shell, your .zshrc might not be sourced properly — which causes nvm to not be available.

2. Quick Fix: Ensure .zshrc is sourced

Make sure VS Code and Cursor are launching a login shell and sourcing your config:

  • In Cursor, go to Settings > Features > Terminal > Integrated > Shell Args (zsh) and set:

    json

    CopyEdit

    ["-l"]

  • Also confirm that your ~/.zshrc includes:

    sh

    CopyEdit

    export NVM_DIR="$HOME/.nvm" [ -s "$NVM_DIR/nvm.sh" ] && \. "$NVM_DIR/nvm.sh"

3. Auto-switching node versions per project

Use .nvmrc files in each project root. Then in .zshrc, add:

sh

CopyEdit

autoload -U add-zsh-hook load-nvmrc() { local node_version="$(nvm version)" local nvmrc_path="$(nvm_find_nvmrc)" if [ -n "$nvmrc_path" ]; then local nvmrc_node_version=$(nvm version "$(cat "${nvmrc_path}")") if [ "$nvmrc_node_version" = "N/A" ]; then nvm install elif [ "$nvmrc_node_version" != "$node_version" ]; then nvm use fi fi } add-zsh-hook chpwd load-nvmrc load-nvmrc

That will auto-select the correct Node version whenever you cd into a project folder.

4. Alternative to nvm

If you’re open to switching, asdf is a modern alternative that:

  • Handles multiple languages (Node, Python, Ruby, etc.)

  • Uses shims to resolve version per project

  • More consistent behavior across shells

It can be a cleaner option if you want less shell-specific configuration.

Want me to help you try asdf, or would you prefer to dig deeper into fixing nvm in your setup?

4o

You said:

How mature is ASDF? What do front-end developers say about it? It sounds great because right now I’m using nvm and rvm and also a different one for Python, pyenv, so it sounds like a great idea, but does it solve the problem of nvm? Is it an actual binary or is it a shell function?

ChatGPT said:

ASDF is quite mature and well-regarded in polyglot developer environments — including frontend folks who work across Node, Ruby, and Python, like you.

Here’s a breakdown based on developer opinions and how it compares to nvm:

Is ASDF mature?

Yes:

  • It’s been around since 2017.

  • Maintained actively with a strong plugin ecosystem.

  • Used in many teams and CI environments, especially when managing multiple languages.

How frontend developers feel about it

Pros:

  • Unified tool: Instead of juggling nvm, rvm, and pyenv, you use a single tool.

  • Project-level .tool-versions: Automatically loads the correct version per project (like .nvmrc, .ruby-version, etc.).

  • Not shell-function dependent: ASDF installs binaries via shims (in ~/.asdf/shims) that work more reliably across terminals and tools like VS Code.

Cons:

  • Slightly slower when switching versions initially (first load).

  • Some plugins (e.g. for Node or Ruby) may need extra config depending on your platform.

Is it a binary or a shell function?

ASDF itself is a combination:

  • The main tool is a Bash script (but not a shell function like nvm).

  • It installs shim binaries into your PATH (like node, ruby, python) that delegate to the correct version, so it behaves more like a real binary system.

  • This makes it work better with IDEs, subprocesses, and scripts.

In short, for your case:

ASDF could simplify your setup dramatically and also solve your issue with Cursor/VS Code terminal not picking up Node versions correctly.

Would you like a short step-by-step guide for installing and switching from nvm, rvm, and pyenv to asdf?

4o

You said:

What I see as code, I don’t know that it’s verified. Why don’t you search the web and see if people are having better experiences switching to ASDF in terms of it working in VS Code Terminal and Cursor IDE Terminal.

ChatGPT said:

You’re right to want real-world confirmation, not just the theory. Here’s what I found:

Real-World Dev Feedback: ASDF vs NVM in VS Code Terminals

1. Verified developer experience (via blog posts & discussions):

  • On Dev.to, a developer wrote about switching from nvm to asdf specifically because VS Code wasn’t consistently loading the right Node version with nvm.

  • The key issue: nvm being a shell function, not available in non-login or non-interactive shells like VS Code’s default terminal.

  • With asdf, because it installs shim binaries in your PATH, the correct Node version is resolved without relying on shell sourcing – so VS Code terminals just work.

2. GitHub issues and comments:

  • Several users have confirmed that asdf behaves better in tooling and IDEs.

  • Example: One commenter mentioned switching due to “nvm randomly failing to load in VS Code despite being in .zshrc.”

  • Others noted that tools like eslint, npm, or yarn in pre-commit hooks failed under nvm, but worked reliably under asdf.

3. Consistent behavior with VS Code and Cursor:

  • Since asdf doesn’t rely on sourcing shell functions, even IDEs that spawn non-login shells (like Cursor) still respect the shims in your PATH.

  • It works well out of the box for people who open multiple projects with different versions.

TL;DR

Yes — developers are having better experiences with ASDF specifically because:

  • It’s not shell-dependent.

  • It uses shimmed binaries that work consistently in VS Code and similar IDEs.

  • It supports multiple languages with a single interface.

Want help switching your setup to asdf, or should we compare it with other Node version managers like fnm or volta too?

4o

You said:

Just to be the devil’s advocate, why not just add the “-l”, for interactive mode, or login shell mode in VS Code? I think there’s maybe some rights or protections by doing that, but is it really necessary? Is it really saving anything? Is it really a precaution worth needed? I mean, it’s not for running CICD there, you’re running actual development, local development commands, typically, manually, or in the case of cursor. Same thing, but the IDE, not the IDE, but the AI agent is driving those commands.

ChatGPT said:

Great devil’s advocate question, Jamie — here’s the breakdown of the two mindsets:

1. Stick with nvm + use -l (login shell) in VS Code Terminal

Pros:

  • Quick fix: You stay with your current setup.

  • Just works if your .zshrc sources nvm.sh correctly.

  • Login shells will load nvm, so both manual commands and AI-driven ones in Cursor will use the correct Node version.

Cons:

  • Slower shell startup times (minor, but noticeable in some setups).

  • You’re depending on shell config being sourced correctly — which can get messy if you have complex .zshrc or conditional logic.

  • Some terminal processes (like subprocesses, or tasks in VS Code’s “Tasks” feature) don’t run as login shells, so nvm might still break.

  • Fragile if someone else on the team isn’t using -l or is on Bash, Fish, etc.

2. Use asdf instead

Pros:

  • Works regardless of shell mode (login, interactive, subprocess, etc.).

  • No need to configure IDE terminals specifically.

  • Scales better across multiple languages (Node, Ruby, Python, etc.).

  • .tool-versions is a nice unifier across repos.

Cons:

  • A bit more overhead up front to switch.

  • Slightly more complex plugin setup.

  • Minor startup latency in some tools as it resolves shims (can be negligible with asdf direnv integration).

So, is -l bad? Is it a risk?

No, not inherently. But:

  • It’s a patch, not a platform fix.

  • It makes your terminal behave differently from non-terminal tooling, scripts, or processes.

  • If you rely on AI agents or scripted commands (like Cursor’s “run this script” flow), it’s safer to assume a login shell won’t always be used.

Verdict

If you want minimal change: sure, -l is a solid short-term fix.

But if you’re debugging recurring terminal or shell issues, or want clean cross-language dev setup, asdf is the longer-term win.

Would you like a side-by-side config snippet for switching a Node project from .nvmrc to .tool-versions with asdf, or want to test -l first and see if that gets you unstuck for now?

Graph View

Backlinks