"Indeed, the notion of returning to time T when you want to make a modification to an element related to another element of the future is more time-consuming than productive. Solidworks, onshape even inventor doesn't work like that, why fusion made this choice?"
I don't understand what you mean by this statement. All of the systems you mention absolutely do implement rollback when editing a part. If you edit a sketch in any of those systems, all the later features are suppressed (or "rolled back"), just the same as in Fusion. The only difference is that the timeline is horizontal, while a feature browser is vertical. Is it the fact that Fusion also uses the timeline for assembly operations, such as creating a joint, inserting a component, etc? If so, then you are not required to use Fusion in that way. You can use Fusion very similarly to how you use solidworks: Define each "part" in a separate design, create a top-level Direct Modeling design to serve as your assembly, and insert each part into your assembly. Yes, Joints are different than Mates, but my sense here is that you are not referring to that aspect of Fusion.
I see from the images in your original post that you are taking advantage of Fusion's ability to define "internal components". I understand why you would do that, I love the ability to define components without creating a new external design. It's super convenient and efficient. But, yes, it comes with this price: that means that those same local components are defined as part of the history of the single design you are making, and therefore you must live with the history-based nature of those components. I feel fairly certain that there is no way to support local components in a history-based system without having this behavior.
So, the choice is up to you. I would recommend you try using the "all components are external" approach, and see if you like it.
Jeff Strater
Engineering Director