4 ms·
> First off, async/await is promises. It's merely syntactic sugar. The point of async/await is not to never have the word "Promise" appear in your code Sounds
by phendrenad2 5y ago
> First off, async/await is promises. It's merely syntactic sugar. The point of async/await is not to never have the word "Promise" appear in your code
Sounds like you didn't understand the point of the article. Unfortunately, you're arguing against something the author never said, the author never said that async/await weren't promises. You just got stuck on the fact that the author used the term "promise" for the non-async/await style of code. I understood what the author meant, anyway.
> "People can mess this up" was never an argument
Unfortunately, you're arguing against something the author never said here, also. The author is saying that non-async/await code is better code than async/await. Not that "people can mess this up" or something.
- chmod775 5y ago> Sounds like you didn't understand the point of the article. Unfortunately, you're arguing against something the author never said, the author never said that async/await weren't promises. Well. I never said that I didn't understand the article. Unfortunately you are arguing against something I never said. Funny how that works. > The author is saying that non-async/await code is better code than async/await. And what does "better" mean to the author? The entire first section is devoted to the author talking about criteria such as "brittle"-ness, "error-prone"-ness, and "footguns". You seem to be getting stuck up on the fact that the author never used the exact same wording as I did.