There's a lot of arguments that various people make regarding the supposed superiority of different setups. 1) It is claimed that using keyboard-only controls

There's a lot of arguments that various people make regarding the supposed superiority of different setups. 1) It is claimed that using keyboard-only controls reduces "context switching." 2) It is claimed that tiling window managers are simpler and more logical, because you use more of the screen real estate and keep everything open all the time. 3) It is claimed that vim and emacs are better because the brief keyboard commands allow for amazing power with few keystrokes. Alas, these are almost all arguments voiced by people who grew up with technologies built around severely limited hardware constraints. GUIs were terrible for the longest time, and ten or twenty years ago you certainly couldn't get acceptable performance on them when working remotely. There are very good reasons why people would avoid all of these tools. Hardware is much better. Compositing window managers are much better. It is particularly understandable that people avoid vim and emacs. And there's really no empirical evidence at all that they save time, improve accuracy, or anything else. And any empirical studies on this question would have difficulty isolating the variables. People who do understand systems at the low level, and with all the historical context, could very well be better programmers in some ways... but not because of their environment. Thinking you could become like Richard Stallman by using emacs is cargo cult reasoning.