Just seems like such a strange thing to say. I've never, for example, preferred one media player over another based on it's algorithmic size, or bought a iPhone app because it used especially fewer screens.
IDEs are just big text editors with a lot of stuff tacked on. I can see, perhaps, wanting to become VIM or EMACS master-of-the-universe, where you've macro'ed yourself to death and the entire planet can be controlled with just a few keystrokes, but for "regular" coding? What is it about an IDE that bugs you?
I hope I didn't sound too critical. I'm just curious. I'll use any IDE anybody has as long as I can type code and compile it. Add in some macros? It's all good. Why in the heck would I want to dive deeper than that unless I had to? Why would I care? Why would, say, Eclipse be any worse or better than EMACs? Or VS any worse or better than Multi-Edit.
I understand there are big fans of various tools. Feel free to jump in here and make your case. I've love to be mistaken. I just think this is like all the hoopla over Git -- it's a tool. I shouldn't be thinking about it very much. If I am it's not a very good tool.