Vim is built different

Fair, but there's a worse experience possible.

For a time, many people's first encounter with vi was when it auto-opened a temporary editor to ask them to submit a commit message for the git command they just ran.

This experience skips the vi "welcome" screen, because a file is open.

As a bonus challenge, git did not inform the user what editor is in use, and the user had no particular reason to even expect an editor to appear, based on what they were just doing.

None of this was the fault of vi, really. But it was a terrible introduction.

It got better when various operating systems changed their default command line editor to nano, and git added some helpful adjustments - "if certain settings are not configured, assume a new user and show verbose welcome messages".

What do you mean "build our dev environments around vim"? If you mean they write dev tooling in vimscript and explicitly require everyone to use it, I actually agree with you. I don't believe employers should really ever force any particular editor or IDE if the work is getting done. I would be equally annoyed by a workplace forcing me to use vscode instead of vim. It would slow me down way too much.

If you are just complaining that they build dev tooling as a CLI, hard disagree. That is absolutely what dev tooling should use because it's actually universal and can be used regardless of your editor choice.

At my workplace, our dev tooling is done via CLI and our developers use vim, emacs, and vscode. Because it's all CLI, it's easy for individual developers to add their own scripts to automate parts of their workflow as they see fit (and if such automations are deemed useful by the group at large, it will get merged into our shared devtools repo). We even have some editor-specific stuff in there people have written that they find useful, but it's entirely optional.