I guess it's caused by the "brogrammer" culture of Silicon Valley, where you would get hazed if you dared using a GUI-based tool.
Also, being more focused on open-sourcing their tools (because other companies do not open source them, therefore being un-cool), which begets a "simpler" and "engineeristic" approach to UX, which do not need UI experts and designers.
Lots of companies end up with their own internal tooling. They have their own build systems, packaging systems, release systems, version control, programming languages, configuration languages, everything.
Some even have their own editors.
There is a lot of value in picking a transferrable editor and using that. From that point it becomes "what is the best editor that will _always_ be available". Emacs/Vim fit that.
Then the muscle memory can begin to grow, and there is one less bit of friction in starting a new job.
One of the best pieces of advice I received was "pick an editor and go deep".
> One of the best pieces of advice I received was "pick an editor and go deep".
Agreed, I'd be infinitely less productive if I couldn't use the editor I learned to master in the past 20 years.
A corollary to that would be "pick a company that lets you use your own editor". There's lots of friction from IT departments towards emacs and vim. The package/plugin system is a security nightmare with lots of potential supply chain attacks and more importantly no trusted vendor to blame when something goes wrong.
Except maybe Apple, all the others are service-oriented companies. They run heterogenous pieces of code on their servers and their ideology is “move fast and break things”. It’s a hipster culture that reinforced the use of 1980s “video terminal” editors and CLI tooling because they were supposedly more flexible for their workflows.
