Videos

This Rust WebSocket server stopped near 3,700 verified connections. The Node.js and Go implementations reached 5,000 in all three measured runs. What does that mean for a deployment decision under the same one-CPU, 512 MiB container limit? We ran the same echo workload against each implementation.

800 requests per second passed across three clean runs. But the $6 cloud-server claim still failed—because a local test cannot prove what DigitalOcean, AWS Lightsail, or Hetzner will deliver. The full long-form video is now live on YouTube. It includes the provider price comparison, the invalid 8K-

Official VPS pricing, an invalid 8K-RPS run, and a corrected PostgreSQL capacity test. Can a $6 server really handle a stateful production app—or does the benchmark only look impressive because it measured the wrong thing? The first test appeared to reach almost 8,000 requests per second. It also

The same recorded benchmark can pick Go, Rust, or C# depending on what your production actually values, while Node and Java complete the measured comparison. # Description Go won the last video. This sequel opens the scoring formula, shows the full Rust, Go, Node, Java, and C# receipt, and inspects

Runtime selection is a production-cost decision: memory, team capability, operations, and risk. The memory result is clear. The production decision needs more than one number. Same POST API, payload, and Apple M4; three measured runs: - Spring Boot on default JVM: **573.5 MB** - Node.js: **188.5

Same API. Same Apple M4. Same 1,000 concurrent connections. Node.js reached 189 MB of RSS. Rust reached 29 MB — **6.6× less memory for the same job**. The production consequence: across 100 instances, Node reserves roughly 19 GB while Rust stays under 3 GB. That does not make Node “bad”; it means

React added 7 packages and 146 KB to a CRUD table that already worked without either. That does not make React a mistake. It makes it a cost that should earn its place. Use HTML-first when the server owns normal forms, tables, filters, and CRUD. Choose React when the browser genuinely owns realtim

React is not the wrong choice for CRUD. But it should earn the state, dependencies, and bundle it adds. I rebuilt the same contacts board two ways: server-rendered HTML with HTMX, and React. Both versions use the same Go data model, validation rules, filters, and create behavior. The React lane dec

HTTP/3 was not built because HTTP/2 failed. It was built because HTTP/2 still sat on TCP, and one lost packet could delay unrelated streams behind it. This short walks through: - why HTTP/1.1 needed many parallel TCP connections - what HTTP/2 actually fixed with multiplexing - why TCP ordering sti

Rust used 5.6 MB. Go used 16 MB. The screenshot made Rust look like the obvious winner. Then 500 concurrent users arrived. Same CRUD API. Same PostgreSQL database. Same routes and request mix. Two fresh runs per cell. Go: 2,615 requests per second at 387 ms p95. Rust: 2,036 requests per second

This React CRUD screen gave me the same result with seven extra packages. This short compares the same contacts board built two ways: - Go + server-rendered HTML + HTMX - React on the same backend contract What stays the same: - same rows - same create flow - same filter result What changes: - de

Most CRUD apps do not need a client-side state machine. This video builds the same contacts board twice: - Go + server-rendered HTML + HTMX - React using the same backend contract Then it measures the trade-offs honestly: - source complexity - dependency count - JavaScript payload - request behavi