You're right to point out the cultural divide w.r.t. tooling. It just seems to me that when two different people come up with pretty identical names for something and focus an essay/paper on that name, then there's likely an opportunity for some sort of cross-pollination of ideas.
One person's vice is another person's virtue; I'm not sure how that would create opportunities for collaboration :)
The irony of the situation is that languages like Rust and Haskell provide a lot of static type feedback that theoretically would make their IDEs very powerful. However, in order for that to really happen, IDE concerns have to be considered very early in the language design process. As a result, we see the tooling crowns going to languages like Dart, whose "type system" is basically designed to make tooling possible (and secondly, for the early detection of errors).
I tried to revive as much information as I could from my days in Visual Studio, but if you have additional feedback, I'm sure he'd be very interested to hear it! Obvious caveats about it being a long-term goal, no immediate plans to tackle it, larsberg is on Servo so what does he know, etc. :-)
Speaking out of complete ignorance of what Rust's situation actually is, I think the key is to have a gentle slope from "bad program" to "good program" that allows for the IDE to provide bits of feedback along the way to get to the "good program" state along with helping out with much of the mental computation that the programmer otherwise does in their head.
Rust's type system doesn't really seem to be there yet: there are just "wrong programs" and "right programs" with not much in between. Gradual typing on the other hand works very well here.
