Or XCode, that's Apple's (free) IDE for Mac OS X
OK, let's consider only compilers, if you wish..)
Btw, GNU Emacs, which is another "miracle" of software engineering, is a good-enough IDE part for Clang. Together, in pair, they are, in my opinion, even more flexible and less resourse-wasting than VS. And (surprise!) cross-platform.
The "miracle" of Emacs in that it has a very powerful DSL which uses proper abstractions - buffers, paragraphs, blocks, strings, fonts, characters etc. embedded into a Lisp. Thus it is a thoroughly programmable (not just extensible) editor.
It is quite beneficial to get familiar with ideas and design decisions behind Emacs, especially in the age of Java and copy-paste based coding.
(As a text editor Visual Studio isn't great but it's perfectly adequate and I generally get by by copying and pasting to and from Emacs if I need to do anything complicated.)
I could have a flexible, programmable good-enough DE for C/C++ with make, emacs+cedet+cc-mode on my netbook with a crappy AMD x86-64 CPU and 1.5Gb of available RAM. It works fine for navigating over my own code, when I know what I am doing and why.
I would not explain the wonders of emacs+slime+cmucl or emacs+cider+clojure-mode here. Just one hint: everything works on a [remote] text terminal via ssh,tmux,etc. Google does it better.
Eclipse, while it could start without any progect in a minute or so, is unusable for anything but menu navigation.
Moreover, there are people around who still believe that make and command line tools are still good enough.
My bet is that very complex software, like nginx or postgresql has been written in vi or emacs.
In manys eyes it is quite the opposite: Netbeans and Eclipse used to run circles around VS. I understand a lot of people like VS and there have been improvements lately bur please don't spread FUD on HN. Thanks.
Having been a user of all of them for... as long as they have existed (oh God)... Visual Studio has been my preferred software at the time that each version existed. Even the much-maligned Visual Studio .NET 2002 seemed relatively faster and less error-prone than the then-current release of Eclipse. The decision to use Eclipse was usually a cost or programming language issue. You don't code Java in Visual Studio. There were many times, if I could have, I would have plunked down the cash.
Today, I try to setup my projects to be editor-agnostic, but I still end up using VS Express 2013 for Web when I'm working from a Windows machine. When I'm not, I'm not using Eclipse, I'm using something much lighter, like Vi or Geany.
The world is made a better place when people post from a wealth of real world personal experience and cheapened by those that who do not. Please refrain.