> git I still have to look up commands for in some cases

I believe that this is okay. One does not need to know the details about every specific git command in order to be able to use it efficiently most of the time.

It is the same with a programming language. Most people are unfamiliar with every peculiarity of every standard library function that the language offers. And that is okay. It does not prevent them from using language efficiently most of the time.

Also in other aspects of life, it is unnecessary to know everything by memory. For example, one does not need to know how to e.g. replace a blade on a lawn mower. But that is okay. It does not prevent them from using it efficiently most of the time.

The point is that if something is done less often, it is unnecessary to remember the specifics of it. It is fine to look it up when needed.

> It is completely typical, but at the same time abnormal to have tools with such poor usability.

The main difference I see is that LLMs are flaky, getting better over time, but still more so than traditional tooling like debuggers.

> Programming languages are notoriously full of unnecessary complexity. Personal pet peeve: Rust lifetime management. If this is what it takes, just use GC (and I am - golang).

Lifetime management is an inherently hard problem, especially if you need to be able to reason about it at compile time. I think there are some arguments to be made about tooling or syntax making reasoning about lifetimes easier, but not trivial. And in certain contexts (e.g., microcontrollers) garbage collectors are out of the question.

Nitpick: magit for emacs is good enough for everyone whom I’ve seen talk about it describe as “the best git correct” and it is completely free.