Challenge 3: Choosing Sublime Text for a Static HTML/CSS/JS Site — Solution Walkthrough

A reasonable case for Sublime Text:

Per this chapter's own material, a static HTML/CSS/JS website
generally doesn't need a full IDE's own deep language-server tooling
— there's no complex backend logic, dependency graph, or large
codebase requiring the kind of structural project-awareness a full
IDE is built around. Sublime Text's own near-instant startup and
genuine GUI (syntax highlighting, tabs, a file sidebar) already cover
everything this kind of project actually needs day to day.

Why the full IDE's own extra capability wouldn't add much here:

A full IDE's real cost — noticeable startup time, greater memory
usage, more general complexity — would be paid on every session
without much being gained in return, since deep language-server
features and heavy refactoring tools matter most for large,
structurally complex codebases, not a straightforward static site.

Where Sublime Text's own features still genuinely help:

Multiple cursors remain useful for quickly editing several similar
HTML elements or CSS rules at once, and Goto Anything provides fast
file navigation across a site's own files — genuine productivity
features, just without the weight of a full IDE behind them.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
This exercise applies this chapter's own comparison table and "genuinely
popular for straightforward web work" tip box to a concrete decision,
correctly reasoning from the actual needs of a static site rather than
assuming more IDE features are automatically worth their cost.