> and avoid making any decisions using this chart.

I did not mention that chart at all in the blog post. I just used this as a nice illustration.

Honestly yeah

It's an artificial benchmark that means nothing in production

Also the article does not bring much to the table except of python whining

"Oh the Go dockerfile is smaller" Yes you compiled it and is running a binary. Big woop. Funny how the author not doing the same comparison with node

> "Oh the Go dockerfile is smaller" Yes you compiled it and is running a binary. Big woop. Funny how the author not doing the same comparison with node

If I did that with Node, you would say what about Ruby. If I did that with Ruby, you would say what about Zig. There is no end to the list of languages.

> It's an artificial benchmark that means nothing in production

It was a cover illustration, I did not mention that at all. In fact, I demonstrated the resource consumption of Python's docker image. If you have suggestions to make the Python one, I am all ears.

> If I did that with Node, you would say what about Ruby.

No, because the comparison here is runtimes of interpreted languages

Comparing a compiled binary to the python/node/ruby runtime is comparing Apples to Oranges

Why do I have to restrict myself to interpreted languages only?