Yeah and I am saying that you could do that as well with Git. Git just also does have that feature and a lot of users like to use that, but you don't need to.
git and jj are functionally equivalent in this respect, yes, but it's all easier in jj. It all becomes one concept and one command set, instead of three different ones.
The git features of stashing/staging are removed, but they're superfluous given how jj works. You don't need or want them, and keeping them around would only give people two ways to do the same things.
for, while and goto achieve the same and are the same thing under the hood, yet they convey different semantic and you choose between them for different tasks, because they are more suited for different things.
stashes and commits achieve the same and are the same thing under the hood (both are commits), yet they convey different semantic and I choose between them for different tasks, because they are more suited for different things.
All in software is about different abstractions, that all fundamentally do the same thing.
> but it's all easier in jj
You can literally use commits instead of stashes in Git and guess what: it's the same as treating any other commit. Here JJ and Git are the same. You can also do stashes in Git, when you want temporary commits that are put into a "todo" list.
These are all good points, and if it fits how you think about the problem, git is clearly right for you.
I think for me, the unification of concepts, and simplification of DX, wins out. I like being able to use the same set of commands for all three. I didn't miss staging or stashes at all when I switched.
