[nanolith]

and a very low-effort way to get a sense of superiority over others... literally anyone can learn in a few hours.

I agree that it is a skill that is easy to learn. The same is true of IDEs. This isn't about skill or superiority, but comfort. Some folks are more comfortable being closer to the machine or the road, as it were. Others are more comfortable having some automation between them and the machine. I think that the better to consider this a matter of personal preference.

The IDE adds a layer of abstraction, and abstraction can be leaky. If you are comfortable with the abstraction, and with the opinionated choices the IDE makes, that's fine. If you are not, that's also fine. All that I ask when I'm bootstrapping a project with a team is that projects be arranged such that they are IDE / editor agnostic. Use standard build configuration / build tools that have appropriate plugins for IDEs, and can also be run in the terminal / command-line. Then, the individual developer can choose to use whichever editor or IDE that developer is comfortable using.

[snozolli]

This isn't about skill or superiority, but comfort.

The down-votes that I continue to get in this thread tell a different story.

[troad]

> And yet I get down-voted for expressing a well-reasoned opinion against vim and Emacs.

Calling people whose editor preferences differ from yours "obsessed" "editor-hipsters" is not a well-reasoned opinion, nor is saying that people who drive manual are engaged in a "quasi-religious ritual" to feel a false "sense of superiority". Those are just insults. Hence the downvotes, I suspect.

No one here is forcing you to use any editor, you've only got people trying to explain to you what they find valuable in the tools you're attacking. You're coming off as someone with a major chip on his shoulder. You may use whatever editor you like, but you should consider extending the same courtesy to others.