I started taking async and await seriously because asynchronous JavaScript had become one of the easiest places for otherwise simple code to become hard to read.
A website might only need to fetch some data, update a section of the page and handle an error if the request failed. The behaviour sounded straightforward, but once callbacks, promise chains and loading states were added, the code could become much harder to follow than the feature itself. That mattered because front-end work was becoming more dependent on APIs, partial updates and JavaScript-driven interfaces.
With ECMAScript 2017, async functions felt like JavaScript getting a clearer way to express a pattern developers were already using. The underlying work was still promise-based, but the code started to read more like the order of events I was thinking through.
The Problem Was Not Just Callback Hell
It is easy to describe the problem as callback hell, but that was only part of it. Promises had already improved a lot of asynchronous code by giving developers a more structured way to handle work that completed later. The issue was that promise chains could still drift away from the way I wanted to reason about a feature.
If a form submits, I usually think in steps. Disable the button. Send the request. Wait for the response. Show a message. Handle the error if something fails. Promise chains can express that, but they sometimes make the control flow feel more spread out than the actual behaviour.
Async and await gave that sequence a more natural shape. The code still needed proper error handling and the same care around network failures, but the main path became easier to read.
A Small Example
A simple fetch request shows why the syntax was useful. The code does not remove the complexity of asynchronous work, but it makes the order easier to see.
async function loadPosts() {
try {
const response = await fetch('/wp-json/wp/v2/posts');
const posts = await response.json();
renderPosts(posts);
} catch (error) {
showError('The posts could not be loaded.');
}
}That example reads in the same order as the behaviour. Fetch the posts, parse the response, render the posts and handle the error. There is still a lot to think about in a real project, especially status codes, empty states and authentication, but the structure is easier to explain to someone else.
For maintenance, that matters. Code is usually read more often than it is written. Anything that makes the intended flow clearer is worth paying attention to, provided the browser support and build process are being handled properly.
Where It Helped In Real Interfaces
The places I found it most useful were forms, dashboards and WordPress interfaces using API requests. Those are the areas where the browser needs to wait for something before deciding what to do next. A form might need to submit data and then update the screen. A filter might need to request results and replace part of a listing. A dashboard might need to load several pieces of information before showing the final state.
Async functions made those interactions easier to organise. They also made error handling easier to keep near the operation that could fail. Instead of burying error logic at the end of a long chain, I could use try and catch around the part of the feature that needed protection.
That did not mean every function should suddenly become async. I still wanted small functions with clear responsibility. The difference was that the functions dealing with requests and delayed work could now be written in a way that felt closer to ordinary control flow.
The Build Process Still Mattered
In 2017, browser support and project requirements still affected how I would use async and await. Some projects could rely on newer browsers, while others still needed transpilation through tools such as Babel. That meant the syntax was not just a coding decision. It was connected to the build process, browser targets and how comfortable the project was with compiled JavaScript.
This was one of the wider shifts happening in front-end development. The language was moving faster, but using newer features often meant accepting a build step. That was fine where the project justified it, especially for larger interfaces. For smaller websites, I would still ask whether the extra tooling was worth the benefit.
The useful thing about async and await was that the benefit was not abstract. It made actual code easier to follow. That made it easier to justify than some features that looked interesting but did not change day-to-day maintenance very much.
Retrospective Thoughts
Async and await did not remove the hard parts of asynchronous development. Requests still fail, users still double-click buttons, networks still time out and interfaces still need sensible loading states. What it did was make the happy path and the failure path easier to keep in one readable piece of code.
That is why I liked it. The syntax helped the code reflect the way I was already thinking about the feature. For front-end work that increasingly depended on APIs and dynamic updates, that was a meaningful improvement.