I suspect there's an analogy of blub programming languages for IDEs. Once you've seen more powerful solutions you miss them in less capable tools. If you haven't learnt them, you're indifferent.
This is probably why 'table stakes for a modern IDE' viewpoints vary so much.
Related Posts
I've heard of 'blub languages', where you don't realise that other languages have better abstractions until you've experienced them.
I think the same thing happens with individual features. I've seen several C++ folks miss variadic generics in Rust, but I've not written enough C++ to feel it.
Sometimes programming tools are so good that you miss them when using other languages. I see these mentioned the most frequently:
* IntelliJ (for Java)
* Slime+Emacs (for Common Lisp)
* Pharo (for Smalltalk)
I'm struck that they all have bespoke UIs.
I really like pattern matching in Rust, but I find myself using it less and less.
`if let` and `let ... else` require substantially less indentation, and I often use them for Option values.
I don't miss this syntactic sugar in OCaml though. Maybe it's just because OCaml has a 2 space indent, unlike Rust's 4 space indent?