Personally I use some (2-7?) buffers in vim and cycle through them. When I don't anticipate editing a file for a while I close that buffer.
Personally I use some (2-7?) buffers in vim and cycle through them. When I don't anticipate editing a file for a while I close that buffer.
Once you free yourself from this list of things that are "open" (whatever that means) you simply stop caring about the number of items in what is effectively just a "recently visited" list. What value is there in killing those buffers if there's no list for them to clutter? (yes there are lists of buffers in Emacs but you only see them if you want to)
In that light here's my answer to your question: Because he hasn't exited his editor and the number of "open files" has no significance or impact on workflow. While you're deciding whether or not to close a file and trying to anticipate when you may edit it next he's already moved on to editing the next thing.
A couple of years ago I used to keep 100s of tabs open in FF. Then I went mobile and started caring about watts. Not the same situation, but I think it influenced my few-files-open habits.
These days I use TextMate more than Emacs and for small personal projects I like quickly switching between say the readme, makefile, code, and test with Cmd-[1-9]. If there are few files to edit tabs can be advantageous. This stuff is highly personal and dependent on workflow.
Main exception being the alternate buffer for which I have a quick shortcut - (<leader>, - <leader> being set to ,) The consequence is I usually have piles of buffers open at once.
Edit: sjs puts it better above. Having to think 'is this file already opened or not' and then using that information to determine the command you use to switch to it is rather annoying.
But I agree with you, I hate quitting vim, it seems like I lose my place much easier when I no longer have those files open.