> 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.