The structure of the article is a bunch of definitions that build off of prior definitions, and I think it's best to just view the definitions as applying withi

The structure of the article is a bunch of definitions that build off of prior definitions, and I think it's best to just view the definitions as applying within the article and overriding any external existing definitions. It's a little unfortunate and unsettling the two of the early definitions (getter and setter) already mean something else in JS, but the terminology choice is trivial in a certain sense and doesn't affect the concepts laid out in the article. I did find it confusing at first, though. Maybe it could have used a disclaimer, or maybe the author should have chosen different terms (maybe "producer" instead of "getter" and "consumer" instead of "setter"?). I also find it unintuitive to call console.log a "setter", and "consumer" feels better to me.