Because I have dyslexia and command lines are torture for me.

Do you really need to justify people making tools more usable? Seriously? Isn't it enough to say, "if there's a quality UI, way more people can comfortably use the tool."

When you use a git GUI some console actions can be made easier:

- I can stage/unstage/reset my changes line-by-line

- I can observe the whole repository structure as it was at the moment of commit

- Gui client automatically keeps my submodules in the valid state so I don't need to check their state after each checkout

- I can quickly review the whole repo history (sometimes it can be useful when I am involved in a new project)

- I can see clearly the commits which are going to be pushed

Having `git status` in a window-based UI is very nice. In magit, the window is divided into two sections horizontally: unstaged changes and staged changes. Each section contains multiple changed files that can be folded or expanded, and individual lines or hunks can be staged/unstaged as needed in order to prepare a commit.

While it is an emacs extension, non-emacs users can start it with a one-line command and treat it as a standalone application, e.g.

https://github.com/dandavison/emacs-config/blob/master/bin/e...

I know at least one non-emacs user who uses it that way.

There are some videos on youtube showing the magit UI. It would of course look more modern were it not an emacs extension but, emacs lisp programmers being as they are, I believe it is the most fully featured and powerful graphical git UI in existence.

Because when you're doing anything outside of git commit am- "whatever" it's nice to be able to see the complete implications of your actions, what files have been modified, what lines in those files have changed, etc.,

Not sure why this is downvoted, I'm also interested to know how popular these sort of tools are compared to command line git and what the main advantages are.