It’s statements like this among other that fuel git hate. Maybe this is true, I don’t know, but if it is, that’s terrible. To most working programmers these are not the same thing.
They lack a convenient name. You can go to any commit and "turn it into" a branch if you so wish by "promoting" it to a branch.
My point is that there's no such thing as "avoiding branches" in git. Or least, you can't avoid the "downsides" of branches as some perceive it.
Those issues are still present with commits, just without the convenience of good naming.
That is to say, and I should have made it more clear in my initial comment, that trying to avoid branches is pointless and indeed counterproductive. You still logically have branches, without the convenience.