There's literature from C# about abortion/cancelation of promises with throwing a special kind of errors turned out to be a mess.
For this reason, the ongoing rationale about cancelable promises (https://github.com/tc39/proposal-cancelable-promises) focuses on cancel tokens, a new throwable class and even a new clause for `try`.
That being said, the title of the news and the gist is deceptive: requests aren't actually aborted, only ignored. The client will eventually get a response from the server.
Nevermind those clumsy developers that included a built-in module in their package.json, but how could they have allowed a package name "fs" in the first place?
I am baffled that they don't have a list of reserved package names.
"Variable name validation can get tricky"
Huh, maybe, but the essential point is: what did you do to put yourself in the need of such non-trivial validation, and why?
Unless you're writing a Javascript minifier, that is.
Most answers are quite tricky.
Some are quite good because you really need your Javascript knowledge, even bleeding-edge features.
Others require to deeply know what's under the hood of Javascript engines, i.e. dig down into the specs. I'm not really fond of those.
But a nice distraction anyway.
This first part basically consists in setting up a development environment on Windows. Not a single line of JavaScript...
Also, I find the choice of Scoop as a package installer quite unusual, when alternatives like Chocolatey and NuGet are much more en vogue. But well, I guess avoiding a monoculture is good.
On the other hand, ConEmu is nice although I would have used Cmder (which is a wrapper for ConEmu).
What I'd *never* do is writing "jQuery" in all caps.