Live data from Hacker News

Forget CDK and AWS's insane costs. Pulumi and DigitalOcean to the rescue

github.com

41–50 of 172 posts

Re: Forget CDK and AWS's insane costs. Pulumi and DigitalOcean to the rescue

#41

Pulumi is really a royal piece of shit. Why the f*ck am I writing code to do "deployment". In C# --> new Dictionary when dealing with a values.yaml for instance. The whole need to figure out when and when not to use Apply. Give me Terraform (as much as I hate it) any day.

As much as I like it, I find C# to be too inflexible of a language for infrastructure code. I tried with Pulumi for a while but moved to TypeScript as it works so much better. Structural typing makes your life a lot easier.

Re: Forget CDK and AWS's insane costs. Pulumi and DigitalOcean to the rescue

#42
post #36

Digital Ocean isn't really a "real" cloud. Maybe use Digital Ocean if you're hosting video game servers, but no serious business should be on it.

I wouldn't even use DO for that, unless it's like a private server for just your friends.

I won't touch DO after they took my droplet offline for 3 hours because I got DDoS'd by someone that was upset that I banned them from an IRC channel for spamming N-bombs and other racial slurs.

Re: Forget CDK and AWS's insane costs. Pulumi and DigitalOcean to the rescue

#43

Pulumi is really a royal piece of shit. Why the f*ck am I writing code to do "deployment". In C# --> new Dictionary when dealing with a values.yaml for instance. The whole need to figure out when and when not to use Apply. Give me Terraform (as much as I hate it) any day.

Apply is really straightforward. The dictionary stuff is very annoying overhead but it’s nice keeping everything in one language.

Re: Forget CDK and AWS's insane costs. Pulumi and DigitalOcean to the rescue

#44
post #25

I don’t think Digital Ocean is all that much better for pricing, but using Pulumi over CDK is a pure win as far as I’m concerned.

Agreed. On the bright side, I was able to migrate managed k8s on DO to managed k8s in GCP with very minimal work since it was managed via pulumi.

Re: Forget CDK and AWS's insane costs. Pulumi and DigitalOcean to the rescue

#45
post #28

I wish CDK was fully baked enough to actually use. It's still missing coverage for some AWS services (sometimes you have to do things in cloudformation, which sucks) and integrating existing infra doesn't work consistently. Oh and it creates cloudformation stacks behind the scenes and makes for troubleshooting hell.

The biggest hurdle I've encountered is cross-stack resource sharing, especially in case of bidirectional dependencies like KMS keys and IAM roles.

The biggest hurdle is when you want to refactor your stacks, and you pretty well just can't, without risk of deleting everything

Re: Forget CDK and AWS's insane costs. Pulumi and DigitalOcean to the rescue

#47
post #36

Digital Ocean isn't really a "real" cloud. Maybe use Digital Ocean if you're hosting video game servers, but no serious business should be on it.

What's your definition of real cloud?

And can you name a real cloud that charges a half-reasonable price for bandwidth? I consider $10/TB to be half-reasonable.

Re: Forget CDK and AWS's insane costs. Pulumi and DigitalOcean to the rescue

#48

I wish CDK was fully baked enough to actually use. It's still missing coverage for some AWS services (sometimes you have to do things in cloudformation, which sucks) and integrating existing infra doesn't work consistently. Oh and it creates cloudformation stacks behind the scenes and makes for troubleshooting hell.

Cant use bun to deploy CDK, CDK fails as it looks for package-lock yarn-lock or pnpm’s exclusively

So dumb. Trying to move to SST for only that reason

but if you add cdk to the path, you can still deploy, its just that your cicd and deployment scripts are not all using bun anymore

Re: Forget CDK and AWS's insane costs. Pulumi and DigitalOcean to the rescue

#49
post #46

It’s only “insane costs” if you don’t know what you’re doing.

and even if you do, it’s usually a system design problem that you’re maintaining

on one hand, I can see how this is an unfalsifiable standard, on the other hand I can see the utility of solving a friction for people that messed up

Re: Forget CDK and AWS's insane costs. Pulumi and DigitalOcean to the rescue

#50

I wish CDK was fully baked enough to actually use. It's still missing coverage for some AWS services (sometimes you have to do things in cloudformation, which sucks) and integrating existing infra doesn't work consistently. Oh and it creates cloudformation stacks behind the scenes and makes for troubleshooting hell.

I also had a really rough go with cdk. I personally found the lack of upsert functionality -- you can't use a resource if it exists or create if it doesn't -- to make it way more effort than I felt was useful. Plus a lack of useful error messages... maybe I'm dumb, but I can't recommend it to small companies.
Post reply on HN