Variation on the accepted answer which is just as good as this one.

Also, I agree with the caveats of preferring setTimeout and asynchronous function calling but sometimes e.g., when building tests, you just need a synchronous wait command...

function wait(ms) {    var start = Date.now(),        now = start;    while (now - start < ms) {      now = Date.now();    }}

if you want it in seconds, divide start ms by 1000 on the while check...

If you'd like to take advantage of the new async/await syntax, You can convert set timeout to a promise and then await it.

function wait(ms) {  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {    setTimeout(() => {      console.log("Done waiting");      resolve(ms)    }, ms )  })}  (async function Main() {  console.log("Starting...")  await wait(5000);  console.log("Ended!")})();

Synchronous wait (only for testing!):

const syncWait = ms => {    const end = Date.now() + ms    while (Date.now() < end) continue}

Usage:

console.log('one')syncWait(5000)console.log('two')

Asynchronous wait:

const asyncWait = ms => new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, ms))

Usage:

(async () => {    console.log('one')    await asyncWait(5000)    console.log('two')})()

Alternative (asynchronous):

const delayedCall = (array, ms) =>    array.forEach((func, index) => setTimeout(func, index * ms))

Usage:

delayedCall([    () => console.log('one'),    () => console.log('two'),    () => console.log('three'),], 5000)