4 ms·

I prefer Heroku over google cloud, better documentation and deploying is really easy.

• PuffinBlue 10y ago
  Any time I hear 'Heroku' it's mentally followed by that 'it's going to be expensive' intake of air sound. Is that prejudgement borne out in reality?
  • tyingq 10y ago
    $7 a month for the hobby plan doesn't seem that terrible. But, serving static assets from Ruby seems heavy handed. You also end up writing code for things other environments would handle with configuration...like redirects, cache headers, and so forth. Also, while $7 isn't a lot, it is a little more than other solutions in this hobby level space. The suggestions for Netlify and Firebase seem better ideas for static content, and both allow for changing configuration instead of coding to satisfy the normal things you do for static assets. Both appear to be free at this hobby level as well.
    • kristianp 10y ago
      You can use Go with Heroku, with a buildpack [1]. There's a free plan, but it doesn't include SSL. [1] https://github.com/heroku/heroku-buildpack-go https://github.com/heroku/heroku-buildpack-go
      • tyingq 10y ago
        The free plan also "sleeps" after inactivity, right? I assume that means a really long page load for the visitor that follows the inactivity? And, you're still left implementing caching, redirects, etc, in a language (Go or Ruby) vs configuration directives. Just seems a poor option compared to other choices, at least for static content.