I find it really frustrating when project runners refuse to acknowledge shortcomings. I'm not always expecting them to solve it, but I'd at least like an acknowledgement that the issue I'm facing is valid. Pretending it's just me or that the obviously worse alternative is okay gets annoying.

One example is ReasonML's async story:

    Q: What's BuckleScript's async story?

    A: If you're not interfacing with any library that uses promises, you can simply use callbacks. Everyone gets them and they're performant. If you need to bind to a JS library that uses promises, or communicate with such library, you can use BS's Js.Promise.

IMO that's a less than ideal response. I'd prefer a more honest response like:

A: Unfortunately, we do not offer an async/await equivalent currently. BuckleScript has a Js.Promise type for using Promises. We understand that this is not ideal, and are working on other options.

Look—it's okay that they don't have the feature. Nobody's perfect. But they shouldn't pretend that callbacks are an acceptable replacement because they're "performant".