Echo JS 0.11.0

Well, we know what your answer is now :)

Personally I'd say no, probably not. But if you do - you might as well make it your own, based on the particularities of your use case / preferences.

Maybe I'm not following the author's train of thought completely here but I don't see anything at all here that adds up to his conclusion.

There's a single example given around a very particular use case around importing packages (for which it turns out there's a pretty simple solution, if one wants to keep the same approach). 

Suppose that this particular choice for Deno is not your favourite idea, there are a lot of improvements everywhere else. 

Hard to predict the future but my hunch (since that's all anyone has at this point) is that yes, it will eventually "replace" Node, for some value of "replace".

Also from the article:

After stating that JavaScript is the most popular / highest growth language at this point in time:

"However, being the most popular makes it less attractive for beginners as the competition for it is too intense."

That is the most creative reason for not learning JS I have ever read. And _terrible_ advice.

Nice! I'm glad I brought that up!

[citation needed]

Since we're sharing opinions: i think that this is an issue of vocabulary, culture and colloquial usage. there is no real definition. A lot like "geek vs nerd", but i'm not going to touch that one.

Much like the pedantic, insufferable "software engineer" vs. "software developer" arguments (_yes yes I know about "actual" engineers, but it doesn't matter_) nothing positive is created from this line of thinking.

Could be interesting to compare it to `array.concat([item])`. 

I know that Array.prototype.push is generic and can work with several kinds of objects but not sure about `concat`.

Last few remaining Ruby programmers should keep on eye on this one, it's definitely one of the most beautiful and magical trick of Ruby. :)

same question here. lots of upvotes -- who's been using cypress already? it looks great really would love some first hand feedback.

> It differs from classnames in that it does not accept variable arguments.

Can't that be allowed with one line change? It would basically be a drop-in replacement.

ES6 promises aren't cancellable, but if you're interested, here's a simple way to wrap them to be cancellable.

https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/5465#issuecomment-157888325