architect VS bash

I had been running dockeri.co with https://arc.codes/ for pennies a month.

Then, one month, I got a ~$500 bill out of no where.

Docker had changed an api causing my service to return 5xx errors all month. Each error was individually logged to CloudWatch - which racked up a ~$500 bill.

I moved to Cloudflare Workers that day and haven’t moved back.

We use https://github.com/architect/architect to test, provision and deploy the functional web app via GitHub Actions (…whenever they work ;). For the UI/UX we work with https://tailwindui.com and paid them for their great work.

I use https://arc.codes/ for deploying to AWS Lambda/API Gateway. It does a really good job with Remix and NestJS and is easy enough. I like that all I have to do is give a very simple config, and it builds the apps, zips the function code, uploads all my static assets, and then generates and deploys the CloudFormation. I am curious to migrate off as I do have to do some workarounds and it doesn't seem to have a ton of traction.

Not sure why this is downvoted, Fastify is quite popular and the 'generator for everything' approach of Koa didn't really take off.

Architect serverless (https://arc.codes) is pretty good for serverless.

Architect is a heavily opinionated framework for building FWA's, Functional Web Apps. It uses AWS SAM under the hood but provides a layer on top with simplified abstractions that lets developers define and use AWS infrastructure without necessarily knowing what service is backing their "events" construct.

I work for vercel but I highly recommend a host like us because we make it a lot easier to manage a lambda environment and being a lot more to the table (cdn, edge functions, etc). If you want to go your own I really like architect https://arc.codes too. It really depends on your traffic and application patterns but cold starts can be virtually nil.

It uses: - Remix for the frontend - Architect for the backend

Alternately, use Architect. Architect is a 3rd party developer experience that builds on top of AWS SAM. Architect includes a TypeScript plugin.

For us at Begin and Architect, tape has been in use for several years. tape has a stable and straightforward API, routine maintenance updates, and outputs TAP, making it really versatile. While TAP is legible, it's not the most human-readable format. Fortunately, several TAP reporters can help display results for developers. Until recently, Begin's TAP reporter of choice was tap-spec. Sadly tap-spec wasn't kept up to date and npm began reporting vulnerabilities.

> Next you'll be telling me that I shouldn't use Bash because Bash 5.0 came out in 2018 and only got two minor point releases over the next 5 years. But that sounds dumb, huh?

What's dumb is not being able to tell the difference. It's not about the numbers.

https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/bash.git/ shows there are constant updates. Things are being worked on. Your example proves my whole point. There are updates every year for many years.

Express? Not so. There are many gaps in its history. And for a tool like Express that has way more surface area it is in need of a lot more testing and updating e.g. if NodeJs changes something it breaks.

Does Bash need to make sure it works with HTTP3, Brotli or many other things that came out? No.

> Because for the most part - it doesn't need them.

Right, let's go back to the Stone Age. You don't need clothes either - just a leaf. You're just so dismissive on innovation then why bother? You don't even need NodeJs. Back to assembly and punch cards...

> Is an ignorant take.

Yes, yours. As shown above by your example.

> People promote it because it's a good tool.

And how do you know that? Where are the stats? Or people just google for NodeJs server, see the top response being Express and just do that. The cycle then repeats. Have people promoting it actually benchmarked, compared and investigated all the tools before making this informed decision? I'm sure you've heard from each and everyone 1 of them to know the answer eh.

If anyone else is wondering (but it's probably just me), "compatibility level 50" doesn't mean that Bash has a complicated feature-detection algorithm that places compatibility on a scale from 0 to 100%. "Level 50" just means compatibility with bash 5.0.

The bash shell also has code in it to check for this same magic number. This is because bash is also available on systems where the kernel doesn't do #! processing, but people would still want their scripts to behave in a predictable manner. You can see this in execute_cmd.c from the current bash source code.

Well, have you looked at the bash source? The error message is around line 4481 in this file: https://github.com/bminor/bash/blob/master/jobs.c

Was it some ancient bug? I cant seem to find a mention of it in bash changelog

Here is Bash's source code.

After I made the comment I actually decided to look up BASHs source code and here appears to be the part that handles errors if the filename is to be believed https://github.com/bminor/bash/blob/master/error.c

I present you a middle case: here's the source code for Gnu bash's cp command.