I don't think so. I've never felt that having 10 linux distributions was a problem, I just can pick between at least two super robust choices : Debain, RedHat. I can even choose between inkscape, krita, gimp. Or KDE and Gnome...
You can argue that progress would be faster if we have less choices but more choices also means more developpers...
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overchoice and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis
This is BTW no limited to OSS but AFAIK it comes from sales-research. People confronted with to many products of similar type can end in a deadlock, avoiding those products or even start to avoid the whole category.
> You can argue that progress would be faster if we have less choices but more choices also means more developpers...
More developers reinventing the wheel doesn't automatically make the wheels faster. It can mean healthy competition, but it also can mean wasted ressources. It's case by case.
On the other hand it can hurt - for example I'd like to have my main workstation running mainly one gui framework. (Or at least, most of the software). But the KDE/GTK split makes the most popular and sensible software to use for most cases pretty much evenly distributed between those two. (Though this is obviously not a major issue, just an example).
The best thing is to provide some sensible overridable defaults and basic functionality expected these days from a programmer's editor, such as simple project management: index files, fuzzy file finder, etc. Vim and Emacs are a pain in the butt for precisely this reason: they don't take ANY decision, they just throw the entire burden on the user. They're forgiven because they're classics, but any kind of editor launched in 2018 would be utterly ignored if it didn't have these features.