> About 10 years ago this argument ceased to hold much relevance. Or, at least, it did for all IDEs I've investigated. The complexity of editing a sack of code, CPU-wise, hasn't changed all that much, and 10 years has had quite the impact on how cheap 'hardware that can run IDEs without breaking a sweat' has gotten.
I really disagree here. Building C++ software with visual studio takes ages, its auto completion feature breaks VERY OFTEN, and after enabling C++20 for a Qt project, compilation times were 3 times longer.
Still a weird and probably unfortunate name. But now you know.
> and they often require a fast computer.
About 10 years ago this argument ceased to hold much relevance. Or, at least, it did for all IDEs I've investigated. The complexity of editing a sack of code, CPU-wise, hasn't changed all that much, and 10 years has had quite the impact on how cheap 'hardware that can run IDEs without breaking a sweat' has gotten.
> difficult to use or make sense of
Writing software is inherently complicated, and many complicated tasks are significantly helped with the use of complex tools that require a significant investment to learn to use properly. The answer isn't to resort to building tables using a simple handcrafted hammer and a manual saw because those things are 'easy to understand'.
> I prefer the "light minimal software" approach, where I just write things I need without going too big.
To channel Einstein a bit - tools should be as minimal as possible but not _more_ minimal. Which mostly just kicks the can down the road: I don't think it's useful or correct to claim that IDE fans "just like pointless complexity and fail to appreciate the elegance of simple tools". They just defined "minimal" differently from you.