This speaks more to the narrowness of your view than it does about shell.
Example: I work with parallel filesystems quite a lot. Often I will need to parse through GB of logs spread across a cluster to track down a particular sequence of events for troubleshooting.
I could load up a fancy IDE with all the bells and whistles, one that instantly refactors all my 'foo', and still spend a (very) non-trivial amount of time carefully crafting (and documenting, and debugging) a proper application to solve the particular problem I'm working on.
OR - I could rattle off a pipeline using a few general tools and get the needed details in less than a minute.
You analogy about hammers is particularly amusing, invoking the old saw "If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail". You take this to the absurd degree that you end up championing nail guns!
> "parse through GB of logs spread across a cluster"
Why would you do that with IDE?
The OP is comparing IDE v.s. shell in terms of "exploring" and "editing" the code. In that case IDE is a powerful nail gun and championing it isn't wrong.
Example: I work with parallel filesystems quite a lot. Often I will need to parse through GB of logs spread across a cluster to track down a particular sequence of events for troubleshooting.
I could load up a fancy IDE with all the bells and whistles, one that instantly refactors all my 'foo', and still spend a (very) non-trivial amount of time carefully crafting (and documenting, and debugging) a proper application to solve the particular problem I'm working on.
OR - I could rattle off a pipeline using a few general tools and get the needed details in less than a minute.
You analogy about hammers is particularly amusing, invoking the old saw "If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail". You take this to the absurd degree that you end up championing nail guns!