5 ms·
Heroku has always had a place in my heart. It was, by far, the best way to deploy small apps. One `git push` to deploy. It just worked. The problem is that by t
by obviouslynotme 6y ago
Heroku has always had a place in my heart. It was, by far, the best way to deploy small apps. One `git push` to deploy. It just worked. The problem is that by the time you grow up and hire multiple people, you very quickly run into a point where hiring a devops guy is cheaper than Heroku. You hit this limit much quicker if you are doing something more complicated than monolith + database.
There is also something I like to call the Ruby on Rails dilemma. Rails is a beast when it comes to rapid prototyping and small teams. I don't think anything else comes close. But as your team and system grow, all the conventions that let you speed ahead in the beginning start holding you back. Now you are digging through Rails code and doco trying to find ways to override defaults without destroying everything else.
Heroku is the PaaS version of Rails. Small projects are super easy to get going. You don't get a better starting experience. But as you grow, all the conventions of Heroku that helped you launch with ease start becoming month-long expeditions for work-arounds. Worse, Heroku isn't open source. You can't look at the code to understand your issue. It doesn't take long for someone to lose their minds and spend a weekend creating a presentation on the benefits of moving to another platform.
- noodle 6y agoI generally speaking agree with this in spirit, and I've been the one in the seat making the Heroku <-> AWS decision. But for the last 3 companies I've made that choice, the decision to move from Heroku to AWS doesn't start to make sense until the ~25 team member size and several years into the life of the company. It doesn't happen all that quickly, at least in my experience. [Edit: so what I'm saying is the characterization of heroku is only good for very tiny teams/projects/etc has not been true for me.] YMMV of course - depends largely on what you're building.
- AlchemistCamp 6y agoI agree with you for the Heroku of a decade ago. Now, I'd say Render is the modern version of what Heroku was. It's super easy to use for Rails/Laravel/Node/etc, it doesn't break clustering of Elixir apps and static sites are free.
- D13Fd 6y agoI love Render. Really nice services, good UI, and they keep iterating.
- kingosticks 6y agoUnless you have a static site, in which case there are loads of options out there, there doesn't seem to be a free tier. Wouldn't fly.io be the modern version (I'm not saying heroku is outdated, I think it's still brilliant)?
- bliteben 6y agoI keep seeing render come up, but every time I am shocked they paid money (I assume) for that domain name, as there will be no way to google "render rails deployment", "render react deployment" etc. What a horrible name for a company like this.
- iudqnolq 6y agoIt's interesting you don't see it. I wonder what sort of profile google's made of you. I get their website as the first result for both queries, both in my signed in profile and in a clean browser session over a vpn.
- ZWoz 6y agoWhat is Render and what is does?
- connorlay 6y ago> it doesn't break clustering of Elixir apps Interesting! I've been experimenting with Gigalixir for a Heroku-ish experience that supports Elixir clustering... I'll have to give Render a look and compare the two.
- collyw 6y agoIt wasn't really as simple as that though. I set up a couple of apps on their free tier, and there is a Heroku way of doing this that was quite different from having access to a VM and installing and configuring things manually, which is what I was used to at the time.