The thing is that an editor is one of the tools that a programmer uses. We also use build tools, debuggers, profilers, visualisation tools, etc, etc. IDE stan

The thing is that an editor is one of the tools that a programmer uses. We also use build tools, debuggers, profilers, visualisation tools, etc, etc. IDE stands for "integrated development environment", but to do the "integration" part, what it usually means is that it bundles tools for you. So you are stuck with the editor, debugger, build tool, etc of your IDE. Every time you choose not to use that "integrated" tool reduces the value of the IDE. For example, if you decide to write your own build files and start the build process off differently than the IDE expects, it's no longer "integrated". If you decide to use a different debugger, it's no longer "integrated". Primarily, choosing not to use an IDE is mostly about wanting to be flexible about the tools you are choosing. Sometimes the tools in the IDE are really good for your job (for example, some of the refactoring tools can actually make certain IDEs worth it alone in some environments). Other tools, like the simplified build systems, almost always cause more trouble than they are worth in the long run. When you get down to think about it, how difficult is it to "integrate" a custom set of tools without an IDE? We are programmers. Especially programmers who come from a Unix background are very much used to building their own environments. It's not nearly so hard as it seems -- especially because most of the heavy lifting has already been done by people before you. In the case of Emacs, it practically is an IDE, except that you can plug damn near anything into it with a little elbow grease. I know of programmers who never leave Emacs. Ever. So to sum up, there is almost nothing you do in your IDE that I don't also do in my custom built DE. My biggest gripe about IDEs is that I wish they would unintegrate their tools so I could use them separately :-)