>Do it then. Many have tried. All have failed. Talk is cheap.

I'm, just like many other people using GitHub Desktop (or Git Kraken or Git Extension, but I dont like this one)

when I'm working in GUI environment, that's proof that it is possible.

The problem with creating 3rd party tool that's CLI wrapper is that you cannot rely on it being installed on the system.

That's why such solutions usually fail - because you risk relying on stuff that may not get traction and you'd be better sticking to "official" syntax in long run.

Is gitk still a thing that's available with git? Not as full featured but great for viewing and good with many commits/files.

Yes

I'll share here my positive opinion of GitExtensions (on Windows). It has really helped me use and better understand Git, while also helping me define and share workflows with my colleagues..

Other GUIs, like the ones embedded in VisualStudio, VSCode or Rider, try to sell skipping some cognitive steps for some operations as simplifying or speeding up dev flow. I find they are just offering extra (beyond what git itself offers) ways of shooting yourself in the foot.

Magit is great. So not all have failed.

I would say that Mercurial has a simpler UX than Git without being less powerful. I think Jujutsu (see other posts here), which I started, also has simpler UX and is more powerful than Git in many ways. Have you looked at either of those?

About a decade ago, I tried both mercurial and git, and at the time had only subversion knowledge. I remember finding mercurial extremely confusing and git very simple, but don't remember the details about why mercurial was confusing.

Whereas conversely I was glad that with Mercurial I no longer had to deal with Git's staging area (for me, Mercurial's interactive commit serves the same purpose).

Plenty of folks are!

But your talk "it's impossible, trust me" is cheaper since it's a much stronger claim