I agree. I will paraphrase this as - a well designed language should be usable, at minimum, from a pure text editor, and should not put unreasonable burden on an IDE.

The cynic in me wants to say that such a language doesn’t lend itself to static analysis. As soon as you can do great things with static analysis you can build those features into an IDE, therefore causing the “pure text editor” to feel crippled giving rise to the idea that this language is “unusable from a pure text editor”.

A good dev uses an IDE. In 2020.

This is a really tired argument that we don't need to get into right now. Different things appeal to different people.

Two things can be true. You shouldn't need an IDE to grok the code.

A good dev shouldn't require crutches

Interactivity is not a crutch.

Interactivity is a base attribute of an ide, and not the first reason people use it; the context here is that using an ide doesn't define a good programmer. So being able to clicky click is what makes good programmers to you?

They said that good devs use IDEs, not that IDE use makes you a good dev. Those are very different statements.

They said "A" good dev uses an ide, and a snappy 'in 2020' retort. It's plainly clear their intention is to imply only good devs use ide's in the modern era.

No, that's not how simple if statements work. I don't know what else I can say.

If I say "A good CPU has more than two cores in 2020." then I'm just saying it's a requirement, not sufficient all by itself. I'm not calling a twelve-year-old phenom X3 a good CPU. The "in 2020" is just to emphasize that anyone failing this standard is falling behind the times.