I mostly use Go + SQLite for all the things I used to use Rails, JavaScript, or Python for.

I find python django wastes too much resources, just look at memory usage.

One of my web app backend (go) is serving approx 100 req/s right now and i look at pprof i see it's not bottlenecked by CPU but mostly IO and i love this.

Writing concurrent code in Go is easy, the code i wrote 10yrs ago still compiles with no issue! This is why i am never gonna switch.

My go apps use very little memory, so we can scale to many users for very cheap.

For larger apps i use postgres (why? replication is easy using pgfailover, high demand apps need multiple api servers so it's out of process db like postgres is fine) but most of my web app use HTMX and if we need some reactivity, i use react (simply due to react experience from work)

For our maintenance calorie tracking app, which is free and has no ads, we have to use as few resources as possible as we scale to thousands of users: macrocodex (which figures out maintenance calories from weight and calorie intake). We initially used Haskell.

Later, it became slow and cumbersome to develop in (developing on an Apple Silicon Mac and deploying to x64 is a pain), even though I liked writing Haskell code. I even tried nix and wasted a day on that! I had a choice between OCaml and Rust. I picked Rust and never looked back.

The algorithm serves in 0.1 ms on Rust. In Haskell, it was 0.2 ms, and memory usage was twice that of Rust. There are many optimization possible in Rust which i didn't do (for sake of simplicity) yet i received good performance.

Yeah, I use Docker to compile Rust, but it's pretty fast, much faster than what I had with Haskell, so the developer experience is great.

By switching to Rust, the LOC dropped to half of what we had in Haskell.

project turned out to be successful. It has already produced guaranteed weight loss or weight gain for many people.

So I set out to create an algorithmic workout app, for which I am using Rust and Go. The mobile app is in Flutter.

▲

nargek 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Appart from the fact that you find that Python wastes too much memory, what is your point ? I think that any person choosing Django knows that Python by nature will not be the most efficient language. Apart from that Django is battle-tested and can help bring a stable "product" quite quickly.

▲

faangguyindia 2 hours ago | parent [-]

if "2-3 requests per second" per author is what you wanna do on $10 server go ahead". My server does 100 RPS on $16 instance

neither you are saving any time, nor money.

>part from that Django is battle-tested and can help bring a stable "product" quite quickly.

this is a myth, you'll not save anytime. Only way you can save time is if you've experience in this but same is true if you write your app from scratch in Go from your learned patterns.

	▲	echoangle an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> if "2-3 requests per second" per author is what you wanna do on $10 server go ahead That's not a Django limit and there's something going on with the authors setup. 100 RPS on a $16 instance would be easily doable with Django too. > neither you are saving any time, nor money. How do you know? I'm pretty sure I can set up the same webapp in Django much faster than in go, so I'm saving both. > this is a myth, you'll not save anytime. Only way you can save time is if you've experience in this but same is true if you write your app from scratch in Go from your learned patterns. Why do you think all the built in stuff in Django does not save time? Any argument for that?