Remember when you used SVN or whatever before git, and you loved git because of how easy it is to make branches?

With branches, jj is to git what git was to SVN. It's an order of magnitude less friction to do branching in jj than git.

Not long ago, I pulled from main and rebased my branch onto it - merge conflicts. But I wanted to work on some other feature at the moment. Why should I have to fix this merge conflict to work on a feature on a totally different branch? With jj, I don't. I just switch to the other branch (that has no conflict), and code my new feature. Whenever I need to work on the conflicted branch, I'll go there and fix the conflict.

Once I started using jj, I realized how silly it was for git to have separate concepts for stash and index. And it's annoying that stash/index is not version controlled in git. Or is it? I have no idea.

In jj, a stash is simply yet another unnamed branch. Do whatever you want there. Add more commits. Then apply it to any branch(es) that you would like to. Or not.

Why does git need a separate concept of a stash? And wouldn't you like a version controlled stash in git?

Have you ever made a ton of changes, done a "git add", accidentally deleted some of the changes in one file, done a "git add", and thought "Oh crap!" I suppose that information can be recovered from the reflog. But wouldn't you wish "git add" was version controlled in the same way everything else is?

That's the appeal of jj. You get a better stash. You get a better index. And all with fewer concepts. You just need to understand what a branch (or graph) is, and you get all of it. Why give it a name like "stash" or "index"?

Why does git insist on giving branches names? Once you get used to unnamed branches, the git way just doesn't make sense. In jj you'll still give names wherever you need to.