Given that IDEs are the primary tools of programmers, and unlike Photoshop users our primary skill is to build software itself, why are IDEs not the most advanced pieces of software that exist? It seems logical. They have the most advanced users; they don't need to worry about scaring the kids at home. They should be constantly adopting the latest and greatest in performance and UX.
Instead we have vim and emacs which, beloved as they are, still have as their primary interface a grid of characters -- not just the code itself, but the user interface. It's like nothing has changed in terms of the graphical output capabilities of computers since the late 1970s. (And yes, there are WIMP versions, which add drop-down menus. But the primary interface mechanism is still keyboard shortcuts.)
Then there is the beast called Eclipse. It certainly seems like it should be able to do everything in the world, certainly the download takes long enough and there are enough configuration options. Yet it is buggy, its plugin architecture is a conflicting mess, and its performance is so abysmal that frustrated coders return to vim and emacs so they can get something done.
Version control -- a critical function for all modern programmers -- is still largely handled on the command line. Maybe, if you're lucky, you get a side-by-side comparison in Eclipse (but not for git, yet!), but as far as tagging and branching goes, graphical representations are out. WTF?
I'm so glad to see this article, because I have spent so long in the company of programmers who hear me ranting about IDEs and just tell me to "use vim", as if that were the problem.