4 ms·

I still don't really get it. There are so many simple, easy to build, cheap to run three tier frameworks out there so why bother with all the hassle of porting

I still don't really get it. There are so many simple, easy to build, cheap to run three tier frameworks out there so why bother with all the hassle of porting at all? If your system gets super busy then you can repurpose the code with higher performance and well tuned DBs later. I spent 15 years doing that for some of the busiest systems in the world, but those started on a single cpu.

gregoriol 3y ago
The point is: managers and keywords
gadflyinyoureye 3y ago
At my client, we go Serverless first in a bastardized state, NestJS. The benefit is quick development at a low cost. We have a series of calculations. Each read from a common S3 and write to it. This allows the teams to do their work with independent deployments. Each one costs about $5 a month. That’s rather hard to get in the AWS EC2 world. They are also easier to manage. We don’t have to manage keys or certain. There is no redeploy after 90s that comes with EC2. However these are low access, slowish apps. Maybe a 1,000 calls a day. They can take a minute to do their thing. Seems like a nice match for lambdas. Benefit of NestJS is if we ever needed to move out of lambda we have a tradition all Express app.
- zwischenzug 3y ago
  Useful insight, but whether it's 5$ or 50$ a month, compared to dev costs that's a rounding error pretty much everywhere.
  - gadflyinyoureye 3y ago
    That's why we went with NestJS. It's like Spring but for TypeScript. We can run everything locally. Boot up the NestJS service at localhost:8080 with LocalStack running on the side for access to S3 and DynamoDB compatible, working services.
- jeremycarter 3y ago
  If you write your NestJS application with nice boundaries (SOA or DDD) you can split it up as it scales. It's the same approach a lot of .NET guys take, write it modularly and scale out just the bits that need the throughput.

gregoriol 3y ago

The point is: managers and keywords

gadflyinyoureye 3y ago

At my client, we go Serverless first in a bastardized state, NestJS. The benefit is quick development at a low cost. We have a series of calculations. Each read from a common S3 and write to it. This allows the teams to do their work with independent deployments. Each one costs about $5 a month. That’s rather hard to get in the AWS EC2 world. They are also easier to manage. We don’t have to manage keys or certain. There is no redeploy after 90s that comes with EC2. However these are low access, slowish apps. Maybe a 1,000 calls a day. They can take a minute to do their thing. Seems like a nice match for lambdas. Benefit of NestJS is if we ever needed to move out of lambda we have a tradition all Express app.

zwischenzug 3y ago
Useful insight, but whether it's 5$ or 50$ a month, compared to dev costs that's a rounding error pretty much everywhere.
- gadflyinyoureye 3y ago
  That's why we went with NestJS. It's like Spring but for TypeScript. We can run everything locally. Boot up the NestJS service at localhost:8080 with LocalStack running on the side for access to S3 and DynamoDB compatible, working services.
jeremycarter 3y ago
If you write your NestJS application with nice boundaries (SOA or DDD) you can split it up as it scales. It's the same approach a lot of .NET guys take, write it modularly and scale out just the bits that need the throughput.