[tomredman]

> My only issue was that the execution of an inngest function wasn't completely intuitive, at least in TS, and you have to think in terms of inngest or, more precisely, the abstraction it is providing. Is it an actor, a step function, an event consumer, a saga? or a combination of some?

I'm personally curious about this. I'm not saying you don't, but why would you need to understand what kind of abstraction it is beyond it just being Inngest"? I like to think I've been able to use it effectively without this having ever crossed my mind. But I also just might be dumb. Hence the curiosity!

[ljm]

Because code doesn't execute as you might think it does, which is why Inngest has docs describing best practices.

You have to be careful about how you structure effectful code and how you might share data between steps, and you have to understand when that code might be executed, so the more you know about that, the better. Inngest itself, at least with Vercel, doesn't do its own compute.

Inngest, as far as I know, does not do its own compute, it piggybacks on your own, so if you're not careful you can go hard with inngest but you'll see the impact on your hosting bill; especially with Vercel.

Inngest is a breath of fresh air but, you know, you have to audit your dependencies whether they're SaaS or not. Know how they work, know how to debug them, know how much they'll cost you.

[jedberg]

> Inngest, as far as I know, does not do its own compute, it piggybacks on your own, so if you're not careful you can go hard with inngest but you'll see the impact on your hosting bill; especially with Vercel.

Disclaimer: CEO of DBOS here (Ingest competes with some of what we do).

DBOS provides compute and we don't charge for CPU wait time, so bills are a lot cheaper with our solution.