> DBOS is tied to Postgres, right? That wouldn't scale anywhere near where we need either.
I would challenge that assumption. We have 50 years of experience scaling Postgres. It can scale pretty far, and then you can shard it for even more. Or you can use one of the new flavors of Postgres compatible database that has unlimited horizontal scaling.
> In the end, mostly everyone who can afford to solve such problems are gonna end up writing their own systems for this.
Hard disagree (granted, I'm the CEO of one of the companies selling a solution in this space). If done right with a good DX and lightweight enough, ideally everyone will use DE by default, and will use one of the frameworks provided. Most likely one of the new style frameworks that you see in this blog post and that DBOS uses, that don't use an external coordinator and black box binary with a shim.
DBOS uses in process coordination with a pure language library, which makes it far more performant with a lot less hardware. It's not an apples to apples comparison.
I would challenge that assumption. We have 50 years of experience scaling Postgres. It can scale pretty far, and then you can shard it for even more. Or you can use one of the new flavors of Postgres compatible database that has unlimited horizontal scaling.
> In the end, mostly everyone who can afford to solve such problems are gonna end up writing their own systems for this.
Hard disagree (granted, I'm the CEO of one of the companies selling a solution in this space). If done right with a good DX and lightweight enough, ideally everyone will use DE by default, and will use one of the frameworks provided. Most likely one of the new style frameworks that you see in this blog post and that DBOS uses, that don't use an external coordinator and black box binary with a shim.
DBOS uses in process coordination with a pure language library, which makes it far more performant with a lot less hardware. It's not an apples to apples comparison.