> Give better cues that we are in an asynchronous mental model

The `async` keyword(!) is objectively a clearer signal that the code in question is asynchronous. That's why type-checkers use it to prevent you from doing dumb stuff like awaiting in a synchronous function.

> In simple cases express the code at least as cleanly as async/await

It's pretty hard to see much of an argument here. How can the promise version ever be seen as "at least as clean"?

    await someTask()
    // vs
    someTask().then(() => ...);

Even beyond the syntax here, the promise forces you into at least one level deep of nesting, which instantly makes it much trickier to manage intermediate variables, which either need to be passed along as part of the result (usually resulting in an unwieldy blob of data) or the promises need to be nested (pyramid of doom) so that inner callbacks can access the results from outer promises.

> Provides a much cleaner option for more complex workflows that include error handling and parallelisation.

If you've somehow come to the conclusion that `Promise.all` doesn't work with `async/await` then you have probably misunderstood the relationship between `async` functions and promises. They're the same thing. Want to parallelise a bunch of `await` statements? You can still use `Promise.all`!

I do occasionally find try-catch to be awkward, but that's because it creates a new lexical scope (just like promise callbacks do). I also think the consistency from having one unified way to handle errors in sync/async contexts justifies it.