I tried 10 code editors

Code editors have evolved from keyboard-only tools that replaced punch cards to today’s cloud-connected IDEs, and the practical takeaway is that “best” depends less on nostalgia and more on workflow needs—especially platform support, extensibility, and how much setup friction a developer is willing to tolerate.

The journey starts with vi, a 1976 keyboard-driven editor built around modes. Insert mode is required to type; escape returns to command mode; and saving relies on command sequences rather than menus. That modal approach makes vi fast once memorized—deleting lines with commands like “double d” or “3 d” avoids mouse highlighting—but it also demands a steep learning curve. vi’s limitations reflect its era: no syntax highlighting and little native support for plugins, which pushed developers to build workarounds instead of expecting a fully featured environment.

Emacs, created around the same period by Guy Steele at MIT, takes the opposite philosophy. It’s non-modal, more menu-driven, and highly extensible—capable of bundling tools like debuggers, file management, and even terminal emulation into one customizable environment. The tradeoff is complexity: heavy use of modifier keys can lead to “emax pinky,” and the editor’s scale—over 10,000 built-in commands—means productivity depends on investing time in configuration and macro-building.

Vim (1991) becomes the mainstream developer answer by improving vi with features developers expect in modern workflows: syntax highlighting, multi-level undo, and plugin support. It also includes a built-in learning path via “vim tutor,” and the muscle-memory payoff is framed as keeping fingers on the home row. A later fork, Neovim (2015), targets performance and modern scripting by embedding Lua instead of relying on Vim script, which is criticized as unpleasant. For those who want fewer concepts to juggle, nano (1999) offers a gentler, mode-free terminal editor with visible keybindings—especially “control x” to exit—while staying intentionally lightweight and less IDE-capable.

Graphical editors shift the center of gravity toward the mouse and click-based editing. Notepad (1983) helped popularize the mouse on MS-DOS, and Notepad++ brings that click-and-drag workflow to programmers with macros and plugins. For web development, Adobe Dreamweaver is described as visually polished but slow and dated, with first-class support for older frameworks like jQuery and Bootstrap. The modern default for many developers becomes Visual Studio Code: approachable for beginners, powered by a large extension ecosystem (including likely support for tools like Tailwind), and capable of remote and container-based workflows. Its open-source, Electron-based architecture makes it easy to extend, though it carries a reputation for high memory use.

Platform-specific IDEs then take over when the target ecosystem demands it. Visual Studio for .NET is positioned as a comprehensive IDE with strong completion, refactoring, and debugging for languages like C++ and C-sharp—powerful but overwhelming until deep in a project. JetBrains WebStorm is framed as a “gold standard” for professional development, with polished refactoring (like extracting React UI elements into named components) and less need for plugin juggling, at a cost of about $69 per year.

Finally, the direction of travel points to the cloud: browser-based editing via vscode.dev, GitHub Code Spaces, and browser-run tooling like StackBlitz using WebAssembly. The core message is pragmatic: choose tools that match the platform and workflow you’re building, because the editor’s real job is to reduce friction—not to impress with features you won’t use.