The IDE question can be resolved, as itself as a political issue, with one question: do you have a USER? Because, actually, it doesn't matter a damn what tool

The IDE question can be resolved, as itself as a political issue, with one question: do you have a USER? Because, actually, it doesn't matter a damn what tool or method you use to develop something - do you have a USER? No USER = failed project. I'm personally of the opinion that those who depend on an IDE, in and of itself, are doing the computer world a disservice - because they are perpetuating the 'special' nature of computing by stint of becoming competent with an IDE. IDE's require an investment, they require a portion of your life - investing that portion of life in a product specifically designed to impose limits on your freedom of speech is a gamble, plain and simple. Some people win from such an action - others complain bitterly. Either way, if your language and technology require a commitment of life, then it is either an enabling or an enslaving technology, to more or less a degree. Languages designed to free us from the requirement of using a specialized tool - which is what an IDE is - are of more or less value than languages that don't. And the key to this equation is: do you have a USER? In short: use an IDE if it is necessary for you to gain a USER. Beyond that point however, do not promote technologies with such dependencies. The best computer technologies do not require a big investment on the part of the user. This is true of IDE's. Corollary: the more you have to invest in a technology, the less valuable it is - on the basis of how many users you eventually gain as a result.