People use vim because they want to use vim, not because people tell them to use it.

There was an old blog post comparing pianos to text editors.

A "simpler" piano would only have white keys, but to a piano expert the piano appears invisible (and powerful) after the initial learning curve.

I think an important attribute of mastery is related to consistency over time. Microsoft Word '95 vs 2007 (the ribbon) is a great example.

Mostly MS's keyboard shortcuts have been consistent (Alt-F4, Ctrl-B, Alt-F-S), but their UI has been inconsistent (making mastery harder).

In any case: "tools for experts may seem initially awkward to non-experts"

...and: "initially non-awkward tools may hamper capabilities as the operator skill increases"

I would also say good tools have better "physics" they've got some coherent internal model that is somewhat easy to intuit about.

An easy to learn UI is not without merit but neither is a complex UI with greater inherent flexibility.

I like old, analogue synthesisers. To pick two very famous examples:

I love the MiniMoog because it's very low friction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimoog

It's a classic that's simple to learn and quick to get useful sounds. It's a funk bomb.

I prefer the Arp 2600 though (it's the voice of R2D2!).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARP_2600

The 2600 makes it really easy to the block signal path so no sound gets out, which can be confusing. Once you learn it though it can do all kinds of tricks the MiniMoog can't.

An Arp 2600 can make two completely different sounds at the same time though and a MiniMoog can't. Bob Moog himself was a fan of the 2600.

Both are classics, still being copied to this day, but for different reasons.

Or to put it another way, a piano is harder to learn than a tambourine. That doesn't make either worse in the right circumstances.

This is my mentality but when it comes to my company. I want to have clients for which I consistently produce solid work, no flash, no news headlines. Doing the work and quietly building a reputation.

I agree with Odin creator here. I am not sure when or why we have come to a conclusion in our professional industry that "real software engineer uses vim/emacs/insert your CLI editor here" type of mental model. Is it just the testosterone level speaking here?

I'm not sure about this.

One of my favorite tools is my bicycle. To me, the user interface of my bicycle is totally invisible. I just pull it out of the garage, hop on, and away I go. And it's not like I enjoy my bicycle as a "puzzle" either -- I just want it to go somewhere.

But to my 6 year old, the user interface is quite literally fear-inducing. Everything about the tool is very "visible" to him. Does that make it a bad tool?

I think this article might miss the point that tools like vim often have a much higher ceiling than the transparent or conventional alternative. You get good at the puzzle part of it (which goes along with any craft), and you are able to do things faster than your former self could have conceived.

I remember coming up as a programmer and seeing someone who was truly excellent at using their text editor making large sets of changes that would have taken me double or triple the time and having this feeling of, "ohhh that's the payout."

How does this apply to non-personal-computer-based tools? Heidegger has some cool commentary on the topic. I think good tools can be invisible, but they also unlock new capabilities, almost like a new bodily sense or a new organ. It's easy to focus on a text editor's removal of friction between thought and text, but I also wonder what new capabilities our tools will unlock.