Certainly there are a lot of people that seem prefer imperative mutability, and more power to them, but maybe we learn from all of this and build better tools too.

I agree that code once committed to master should be immutable, but your own private commits should be maleable. It's not a matter of feeling superior or trying to look smarter, it's just really commonsense that you should try to submit easy to understand code changes and remove as much unnecessary extraneous rubbish as possible.

That said, there are certainly ways to better handle the "Oops, syntax error" style of commits than blowing them out after the fact. Some of that is better acknowledging the existing DAG structure of git and realizing that you don't need to 'depth-first search' the commit log every time you look at the commit log. Tools could default to views more like `git log --first-parent` and then let you expand out from there, for instance.

There's also the idea of better drawing lines between the code work and "story telling work" of a commit. Certainly today you could do all your work in progress in a branch and then `git merge --no-ff` it into another branch and there tell the completed story of that commit set after all the "dust has settled" on the stuff that was done in the heat of progress.

It's as much a matter of tooling support and community support (we all make mistakes so we aren't going to dunce cap anyone for making mistakes) as it is a technical problem.

I think we can see that "not all commits are equal" and maybe we want a system for "color these commits as work in progress" followed by "here's the final story for these commits, color it as presentable and ready for code review". I think it's an interesting discussion to continue to have and an opportunity to really think what we want in our source control tools and how they can better help us tell the stories of the code we are working on, for our reviewers and even maybe for our code archeologists.