Most of that could also be considered getting the best out of the tools at hand. Is it necessarily a good idea to always optimize for the highest common denominator? Even for a contributor that at the time of the decision is merely a hypothetical? That same attitude could be brought into a project by someone who refuses to use a build system and insists on everything being laid out for easy compilation by manually launching javac, or on writing makefiles instead of a pom.
I mean sure, there are projects out there where a healthy dose of tool-agnosticism should not be too much to ask for, but a generalized "they are doing it wrong" about people playing to the strengths of their toolkit is really not warranted. The opposite of structuring around what works well with their tooling is structuring around what works well with your tooling. You ask for exactly the thing you are refusing them. Yeah, IDE-only builds are a bad idea, but that's really a concept that has died a long time ago (even if there are probably a few cases around where it still has not stopped moving yet)
I mean sure, there are projects out there where a healthy dose of tool-agnosticism should not be too much to ask for, but a generalized "they are doing it wrong" about people playing to the strengths of their toolkit is really not warranted. The opposite of structuring around what works well with their tooling is structuring around what works well with your tooling. You ask for exactly the thing you are refusing them. Yeah, IDE-only builds are a bad idea, but that's really a concept that has died a long time ago (even if there are probably a few cases around where it still has not stopped moving yet)