I was thinking "oh, network view, this is gonna be a good example", but that comparison isn't.
What specifically do you think is legacy in that comparison? The coloring? The horizontal layout? The whitespace?
The network view lays out forks and their branches, not only [local]/[local+1-remote] branches.
I don't know what IDE that miro screenshot is from. But I see it as wasteful and confusing. The author initials are useless and wasteful, picking away focus. The branch labels are far off from the branch heads. The coloring seems confusing.
If you want to see the commit messages, you either need to hover over a dot which increases visual scanning durations or you need to go to the commits view which only shows the commits on a single branch
It doesn't show commit messages
It's scrolling horizontally
Branches cannot be collapsed
Branches cannot be hidden/ignored
No way to search for commits
No way to select multiple commits
Which also means no way to diff any specific commits together
And there's also no way to perform an action over a range of commits
And there's also no way to start a merge/merge-request/pull-request/etc... between two commits
No way to sort by date/topologically
Keyboard controls only moves view instead of selecting commits
I'll stop here at 10 reasons (or more if you count the dot points), otherwise I'll be here all day.
The network view lays out forks and their branches, not only [local]/[local+1-remote] branches.
Yes, but the others can do that while still being usable.
I don’t know what IDE that miro screenshot is from. [...]
It's gitkraken
[...] But I see it as wasteful and confusing. The author initials are useless and wasteful, picking away focus. The branch labels are far off from the branch heads. [...]
The picture doesn't do it justice, it's not a picture, it's an interactive view.
You can resize things, show/hide columns, filter values in columns to only show commits with certain info (e.g. Ignore all dependabot commits), etc... Here's an example video.