I think it would be fair to say that the characteristics of the code you write could change depending on whether you use an editor or an IDE though.

If emacs + slime is to lisp what eclipse is to java, then I think that is what the GP was alluding to.

To avoid the politics: "it makes just as much sense as Bayesian inference".

I suppose that's better. Great Lispers are statistically unlikely to be using Vim, but the number of people using Vim is so large that merely using Vim isn't damning evidence that code is poorly written.

It's not 'great lispers' it's 'programmers reading lisp tutorials'

If you can find one Lisp tutorial that mentions only Vim or even shows Vim and Emacs as competing setups I would be genuinely surprised.

Here is one: http://ycombinator.com/arc/tut.txt

"There are 4 parentheses at the end of that call to cons. How do Lisp programmers deal with this? They don't. You could add or subtract a right paren from that expression and most wouldn't notice. Lisp programmers don't count parens. They read code by indentation, not parens, and when writing code they let the editor match parens (use :set sm in vi, M-x lisp-mode in Emacs)."

He mentioned the editor second. The fact that it was the only CL project in his github first. In my perspective he mentioned the editor as a weaker circumstantial evidence.