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?