It is certainly true that languages designed for simplicity (such as go, clojure, and to some extent python) exhibit far less friction when composed in minimal editors, than [overly?] verbose/complicated languages such as Java.
However, I vehemently disagree with some of your (implied?) points. In particular, some functions offered by IDEs and other codebase management tools are almost equally useful for both simple and complicated languages. For example refactoring tools, or if we really look at the stem, code-base analysis tools that 1. parse the language, and, 2. have APIs for modifications, are some of the "power tools" that could be useful for virtually any programmer.
As an IDE-averse person, I find myself reaching out for the simpler languages far more often, and do actively dislike high-ceremony systems. All the while, I am painfully aware of the limitations of using only a [good] text editor. My main alternative (to mainstream IDEs) is to context-switch between pure code-writing episodes and refactoring/analysis/etc. periods (using other tools, most on the command line or with output to a web-browser).
Also regarding your comparison between written programs and mathematics: I think that comparison is relevant ONLY for low-churn fundamental code (such as core libraries, or generic utility libraries) and rather poor in a LOT of "business logic"/"presentation layer" code. I myself play code-golf and run several _mental_ redesigns/refactorings when working on code that should be solid and not subject to frequent revisions. In such cases, yes, the code should be readable, well designed, and simple to follow (clarity slightly preferred over performance for the core). Nearly formal and exhibiting formal/math-like traits. On the other hand, "business logic" code is inherently unstable and could require numerous revisions purely due to external requirements. Such code usually shouldn't be optimized for tight simplicity. "the first thing that came to my mind"-level clarity with comments can suffice. Common IDEs do help with the latter type of code (while, I think, not much with the former).
Beside serious analysis and modification tools, there is an extra set of features provided by many IDEs, such as lookups (lookup function/library/etc. initiated while looking at code), autocompletion (based on parsed code or just string matching), etc. These are certainly nice, but I don't think they change the landscape much between IDEs and plain text editors (or rather, editor-and-a-documentation-lookup-web–browser-on-the-side).
So, for me, IDEs are certainly valuable even if I don't use them frequently. In a more ideal setup, I would write my code in my preferred editor without much hand-holding and with just the simplest of IDE-like features. And then, separately, do codebase "polishing" with dedicated analysis tools that may or may not look like conventional IDEs.