Echo JS 0.11.0

Agreed, while it wasn't exactly constrained, I don't think that the first reaction should be to try and ostracize, then push out anyone who doesn't conform to social norms.  Even if someone else is acting childish, it's up to you to be better, to be an adult and adopt and deal with that situation as a grown up.

That said, were there no conflicts with ES5 and say prototype.js?  As far as I'm concerned, mootools shouldn't stop the use of the original name.  I said as much in the discussion thread on GH.

Needs unit tests.

I've definitely gone in this direction at work (honestly, I'd rather just use React).  Pushing for Jest/Puppet now as a matter of fact, so thanks to the author for the ammo.

I wish every "developer bootcamp" would cover this... you'd be surprised how many interviewees can't answer half of the questions from this.

My go to is, "in JavaScript, what values evaluate to false?"

Two points... one, defining what a "Flickety Component" is, would be helpful.  second, a working demo would be *VERY* useful.

edit: tried to submit these as an issue, GH seems to be misbehaving, or the proxy at work is.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I find that tools that wrap Redux into something that is inherently different than, you know Redux, tend to be disliked.  At a point, there's very little point in even acknowledging Redux, other than as a child dependency.

Interesting... need to come back to this at home when I can play with it.

Nice, what if I like my `File.spec.js` right next to `File.js` instead of in a nexted directory?

While Interesting, I kind of feel like they could get away from required quotes on strings, similar to YAML, which I think I'll probably stick with.

Given that it does *NOT* modify the original object, it would be better to call this `extend` not `assign`.