It's not difficult to understand, you just can't be bothered to care.
In the 7 years or so that destructuring assignment has been available, I've never once seen the 'empty destructuring' in your first example. (And if I did, I'd most likely tell someone to just do `const { name } = props[2];`. The second example is a bit silly- if you're using jQuery that much, autoprovide it using a transpiler and be done with it.
My guess is that your org just can't be bothered to care that much about your frontend, so they slap something together that's difficult to maintain, and then blame the language, execution environment, or community for poor results.
In the other words, if some feature can be recursively composable and a weakness of the feature appears only when highly composed, it's generally not a fault of the feature itself. Of course it can still be argued that an empty destructuring (itself non-composable) should be made invalid.
In the 7 years or so that destructuring assignment has been available, I've never once seen the 'empty destructuring' in your first example. (And if I did, I'd most likely tell someone to just do `const { name } = props[2];`. The second example is a bit silly- if you're using jQuery that much, autoprovide it using a transpiler and be done with it.
My guess is that your org just can't be bothered to care that much about your frontend, so they slap something together that's difficult to maintain, and then blame the language, execution environment, or community for poor results.