> Whenever you program in ECMAScript2016("Javascript"), you should take advantage of its features.
That's a trap, I should rather make my code as readable, scalable and bug free as possible regardless of ESxxx.
I can refactor in 10 other ways (different styles) coming to the same result, but that's not what my point was about. Using promises and so is just taste or preference, if you like it you use can it, if not do without. I've seen amazing spaghetti with promises and callbacks as well.
Easy to nitpick btw:
you compare err != null?? besides not using strict mode, what should err be? a String? So, what will happen if err is undefined or an empty String?
Then you call logFsResult with err while it is not used.. Did you even consider what happens if the value of type is not available in map_action? I'll be the end of the feast!
last one: True and False as an object key are not Booleans, so if you have your IDE up and running, the code will fail.
Now, you can try to solve this with promises, just as you can try brush your teeth with a broomstick.
That's a trap, I should rather make my code as readable, scalable and bug free as possible regardless of ESxxx.
I can refactor in 10 other ways (different styles) coming to the same result, but that's not what my point was about. Using promises and so is just taste or preference, if you like it you use can it, if not do without. I've seen amazing spaghetti with promises and callbacks as well.
Easy to nitpick btw:
you compare err != null?? besides not using strict mode, what should err be? a String? So, what will happen if err is undefined or an empty String?
Then you call logFsResult with err while it is not used.. Did you even consider what happens if the value of type is not available in map_action? I'll be the end of the feast!
last one: True and False as an object key are not Booleans, so if you have your IDE up and running, the code will fail.
Now, you can try to solve this with promises, just as you can try brush your teeth with a broomstick.