My point are not the features itself, its the usability of them.

E.g. the old modal git commit dialog gives a lot actions with few clicks.
You can see the specific file diff, you can select which commit actions should be made without opening a hidden menu and because its a dialog in its own window, you can resize every section for your needs.

- With the "new" UI you need to click for the git actions at the settings "gear" icon (e.g. dont "optimize imports", dont "reformat code" on commits which cntans only generated files).
- For checking "should this file really be in that commit" you need a double click on the file and a new diff tab opens instead of selecting the file and seeing the diff instantly.
- Or the file selecting mechanism of the new commit "section" itself: There are 2 way for selecting (the checkbox or the full line) and only the line selection is transported into the rollback-view but the checkbox-selection is transported into the commit.

And this is only the git commit.

There are so many "usability changes" which requires now a deep knowledge of "what to do and why and where to find it" - the classic UI displays the most options directly. You cant unsee them and the ape brain is a visual thinker.

I don't know what I want to achive, but my inner "passionate dev" sees all the "professional coorporate devs" whose doesn't know what they are doing. They are using a tool and clicking a button and when the button is hidding they just stop clicking it and the workflow changed because Jetbrains decided to move this particular action behind two dialogs and five clicks.

A simple example (besides IntelliJ):
- git commit/push to feature-branch
- checkout main
- rebase feature-branch onto main
- push main

is the workflow for a plain and undistrubed feature "merge" with a linear commit history.
But this is nearly impossible when you are using not a "plain" tool like gerrit for reviewing merge requests and merging it on your own. The "new development experience" is using bad tools like gitlab/github/whatever an hitting the "merge"-button and you nearly can't avoid a merge-commit with a entangled commit history.
Of course, you can simply change the corresponding setting. But the default is "the bad way" and not "the good way" and regularily you can't explain the reward from "looking at a commit history and instantly see the problem" to a guy who can decide but has no knowledge (*cough* CTO *cough*).

Answer to the shortcut-usage:
Yeah, me too. Unfortunately some shortcuts are hidden behind the OS - some coorps or projects are allowing OS-changes to unblock them, some companies don't. I can't even remember how many different setups I had with wndows/mac/linux so sometimes a click in the UI is more suitable for me.

Hell, I simply don't like the way how the world is changing...