[drewcrawford]

This probably isn't the right place to discuss the article, but I don't think your summary is either accurate or applicable. For example, the article does include code, it does provide constructive alternatives, it goes well beyond my experience by outlining a general proof for why the problem I was working on is theoretically intractable, it was hacked on by multiple people (hence "we"), and so on.

Even if that list of criticisms were accurate, the correct response to an article that has "no code, no benchmarks, no constructive alternatives" is to respond with code, benchmarks, and constructive alternatives. What you do here is essentially say "Because this does not meet some threshold of evidence I can ignore it" instead of what rational people say, "I should collect better evidence but in the meantime let's rely on the evidence that is available".

Finally, you don't really state an articulable position on the actual issue, so the discussion does not really advance. My position is pretty clear: promises work on the platform if and only if there are particular guarantees, and the README of this project explicitly says you don't get those guarantees, ergo this library is trouble. Clearly you object to this position but you do not say, let alone defend, any alternative theory that would have predictive power over whether or not promises will work for a project and for that reason, the comment does not add anything to the discussion.

[davelee]

> This probably isn't the right place to discuss the article

yeah, you're probably right.