The point you're overlooking is that with your shell+emacs solution, you NEED those windows, because you need to run your compiler in one window, and edit in another, and lookup code in the third, and maybe have a browser for the javadoc or other reference in a fourth.

With an IDE, all of that is in the same window, but in popups and overlays. It's presented differently, and the flow is different, so comparing lines of code on the screen is meaningless, it just shows that you haven't really gotten far enough into it that you understand how it is different.

What you're overlooking is that with Vim, I can code in 80x24 or less and be perfectly fine. Try that with an IDE.. Of course I can also throw more space at it if I wish, and it's just that much nicer.

>>you need to run your compiler in one window

Uh, no. [edit: It is not only compiler/tests.]

I also have half a dozen tabs of shell, where I also keep documentation (perldoc, pydoc, etc). (Real Emacs users use emacs buffers for all their shell needs and documentation. I'm a wimp.)

>>comparing lines of code on the screen is meaningless

I have used IDEs (not exactly lately) and have seen people use them quite a bit.

Personally, I don't make non-intuitive claims, and argue that others just don't know what they talk about, without good references.

>>presented differently, and the flow is different,

Obviously the work model is different. But...

You are arguing that all the screen area left to buttons etc is paid for by the IDE's popup functionality.

Screen estate has simple and obvious advantages, since when I write the code, I can see the documentation and/or the functions it calls at the same time.

You need references for your claim.

That said, with a language which gives Cobol fingers (Java, etc) and/or use half a sentence to write a library call, I do see a case for an IDE.