2018-11-14
1167
Alberto Gimeno
230
Nov 14, 2018 ⋅ 4 min read

Promise chaining is dead. Long live async/await

Alberto Gimeno Ecosystem Engineer at GitHub. Sometimes I write about JavaScript, Node.js, and frontend development.

Recent posts:

react 19.2 what is new and what to expect

React 19.2 is here: Activity API, useEffectEvent and more

Discover what’s new in React 19.2, which features long-awaited features like the Activity API and the useEffectEvent Hook.

David Omotayo
Oct 13, 2025 ⋅ 7 min read
ai dev tool power rankings

AI dev tool power rankings & comparison [Oct 2025]

Compare the top AI development tools and models of October September 2025. View updated rankings, feature breakdowns, and find the best fit for you.

Chizaram Ken
Oct 13, 2025 ⋅ 9 min read

Hooks vs. Signals: The great reactivity convergence explained

React Hooks and SolidJS Signals solve reactivity differently. Learn how each manages state and updates, and when to choose one approach over the other.

Isaac Okoro
Oct 10, 2025 ⋅ 4 min read

Exploring the new Chakra UI MCP Server

Discover how the Chakra UI MCP server integrates AI into your editor, reducing context switching and accelerating development by fetching real-time documentation, component data, and code insights directly in-app.

Emmanuel John
Oct 9, 2025 ⋅ 6 min read
View all posts

4 Replies to "Promise chaining is dead. Long live async/await"

  1. awaits are actually converted back to yields, which in turn are converted to closures…so the garbage collector argument does not hold. Otherwise, great post, thanks!

  2. Nice article. But, if you have to replace Promise.all with an external library.. then Promise.all is not dead.

  3. How do we do this level of asynchronous task in await?:

    const result = await Promise.all([
    independentTask,
    taskA.then(resultA => {
    return dependentOnTaskA(resultA)
    })
    ])

    The point is that independentTask is one work flow, and task->dependentOnTaskA is another workflow. And hence, neither should be waiting on either.

Leave a Reply