Sorry but as someone that has done both C# in Visual Studio and embedded development in vim/gdb/UNIX, your claims do not hold up... > have no comparable analog

Sorry but as someone that has done both C# in Visual Studio and embedded development in vim/gdb/UNIX, your claims do not hold up... > have no comparable analogue in traditional text-focused, non-IDE editors. The same features have been there in TUI editors for many, many years. There is nothing visual about the backend that handles those queries. Whether the interface is easier to use or not is a different matter, but the features have been there for decades. > Not to mention visual debuggers Well, yes, visual debuggers are better with a GUI, that is obvious. > not to mention remote debugging! Remote debugging is very common. What you are thinking of is visual ones. > However, objective tests show that even highly skilled users aren't as fast at completing high-level tasks as mouse-users. Citation needed. Blender, for instance, is praised by artists for its hard modeling productivity thanks to all the shortcuts. A few years ago when I worked in VS, I used all kinds of shortcuts. It does not matter that the tool has a GUI or not to make the keyboard useful. It is orthogonal. > took days or weeks to solve the same problem! Days! That is just nonsense. There is no way one takes days/weeks to "debug" something that takes 30 minutes in another general purpose language. Either the task could be trivially solved using the .NET standard library and not the others (which makes it incomparable), or they picked up participants with no clue in the other languages. The debugger or the GUI/TUI distinctions have nothing to do with that. A visual debugger is most useful when dealing with very big code bases that you did not write yourself. For a programming puzzle that fits in 100 lines, a visual debugger is irrelevant unless you are new to programming.