Unfortunately, your expectations would not be met. IDEs make up for their limited text-editing features by providing language-dependent, code-aware functionality. Because C++ is such a hairy language, IDEs aren't able to do much with it. They don't give you anything like the cushy, comprehensive support that IDEs provide for Java. With C++, giving up the relatively lame IDE features to get a powerful text editor is a no-brainer. (I use Eclipse for Java and emacs for everything else.)
You're absolutely right about their development environment; it's adapted for one set of tools. It doesn't necessarily mean other tools are inferior in general, as the author seems to conclude.
I find this post highly questionable. What is so hairy about C++ for an IDE exactly? It's strongly typed and yes, if you do too much C style stuff it may be a bit harder to navigate but if you stay in a clean OO world it should be very, very similar to Java. Microsoft put out a competent C++ IDE well over a decade ago and Borland has done so as well... It's my personal opinion that IDEs are in general superior to text editors because this integration reduces the cognitive load of solving particular programming problems. People that say eclipse doesn't have a good text editor are being a bit ridiculous - out of the box it is not that great, but there are many 3rd party editor plugins, you could configure shortcut keys however you want and of course extend eclipse... now I am somewhat biased in that I work daily on an eclipse RCP project, so I am already spun up on extending eclipse. This all has me curious though, I'll spin up eclipse C++ development against my thesis code the next (likely imaginary) opportunity I have time to kill...
To write a good C++ IDE, you need to deal with macros, C++'s obscene syntax (There are what- four complete C++ parsers?), and you need to parse all sorts of Makefiles, or else no existing projects will work.
I'd expect some games that had to be played with release engineering. If the code is properly modularized, this could be two separate processes where you develop your module with mock data and then deploy it into production. Is the opinion really that all the current IDEs suck - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/visualc/default.aspx , http://www.eclipse.org/cdt/ , http://www.netbeans.org/features/cpp/ , http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html and all the 2nd tier as well? Maybe I am too deep into Java and eclipse, but it seems there are genuine advantages to using IDEs and C++ is similar enough to java that at least for some subset, such a tool could be created. If not, that certainly seems like a market...
C++ does look similar to Java, but it's really not. Preprocessor magic + template magic + linking magic means pain.
I will admit to not having tried devc++ or visualc. I would imagine that visualc might be able to solve the problem, since they can control the build system, and can hook into their compiler directly (last I checked, GCC made this very hard).
I'm also going to go out on a limb and suggest that you may be overestimating the pain points other people experience /not/ using an IDE.
I haven't done professional work in C++ only my thesis project which was relatively self contained and simple, so maybe I am underestimating the importance of preprocessor/template/linking magic. There is certainly a rather large barrier to entry for vim/emacs for the average developer.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that one set of tools is inferior. If I was doing Java development, I would fight harder to make Eclipse work for the project. But the specifics of our infrastructure, SCM, and utilities (we do have ctags and cscope) set up -- and the fact that the team has been using vim/emacs to do this job for the last 15 years -- makes vim/emacs a more natural choice.
You're absolutely right about their development environment; it's adapted for one set of tools. It doesn't necessarily mean other tools are inferior in general, as the author seems to conclude.