Tech Stack Benchmark and Justification

This document provides a comparative study and justification for the chosen tech stack for a project aimed at creating an app (web and mobile) for automation via connection services. The app will provide triggers and actions that users can combine. The chosen stack includes:

• Web: Vite + React + TypeScript

• Mobile: Flutter

• Server: Go

• Database: MariaDB

Below is the detailed analysis of the stack and comparisons with alternatives.

Web: Vite + React + TypeScript

Justification:

• React:

  • Mature Ecosystem: A well-established library with vast community support, making development fast and reliable.

  • Declarative UI: Simplifies the creation of dynamic, interactive user interfaces.

  • Component Reusability: Promotes modular and maintainable code.

• Vite:

  • Fast Development: Extremely fast build and hot module replacement (HMR) compared to alternatives like Webpack.

  • Optimized Builds: Produces smaller and faster production builds.

• TypeScript:

  • Type Safety: Reduces runtime errors and enhances code maintainability.

  • Better Tooling: Superior editor autocompletion and refactoring support.

Comparisons:

Tech	React	Vue	Angular
Learning Curve	Null	Easy	Steep
Performance	Fast	Comparable to React	Slower for large apps
Ecosystem	Extensive	Growing but smaller	Complete framework

Build Tool	Vite	Webpack	Parcel
Speed	Fastest	Slow	Moderate
Simplicity	Simple	Complex	Simple

Conclusion: React, Vite, and TypeScript combine speed, maintainability, and a robust ecosystem, outperforming alternatives for this web project.

Mobile: Flutter

Justification:

• Single Codebase: Write once, deploy to Android, iOS, and web.

• Performance: Near-native performance due to Dart compiling to native machine code.

• Customizable UI: Powerful widgets for designing complex UIs.

• Fast Development: Hot reload and an extensive library of plugins.

• Comprehensive Documentation: Detailed and well-maintained documentation, making it easy to learn and use.

• Familiarity: Already comfortable with the technology, speeding up development and reducing the learning curve.

Comparisons:

Tech	Flutter	React Native	Swift/Kotlin
Code Reuse	High	High	None
Performance	Near-native	Moderate (JS bridge)	Native
UI Flexibility	Highly Customizable	Limited	Native-specific

Conclusion: Flutter’s cross-platform capabilities, performance and comprehensive widget library make it ideal for quickly developing a polished mobile app.

Server: Go

Justification:

• Performance: Compiles to native machine code, offering fast execution and low resource usage.

• Scalability: Excellent concurrency model using goroutines and channels.

• Minimalistic: Clean syntax and reduced dependencies compared to verbose frameworks.

Comparison with Alternatives:

Tech	Go	NestJS (TypeScript)	Flask (Python)
Performance	High	Moderate	Low
Scalability	Excellent	Good	Poor
Learning Curve	Moderate	Easy	Easy
Ecosystem	Moderate	Mature	Mature

• NestJS: Strong for projects already using TypeScript but adds framework overhead.

• Flask: Lightweight but lacks built-in scalability and performance for heavy tasks.

Conclusion: Go’s high performance and concurrency handling make it a better choice for a scalable automation service backend.

ORM Server: Gorm

Justification:

• User-friendly: Easy to learn and use

• Flexibility: Supports auto migration and complex queries

• Large Community: Extensive resources and support

Comparison with Alternatives:

Pros/Cons	Pros	Cons
GORM	User-friendly Flexible Large community	A bit less performant than some alternatives
EntGo	Strongly typed Can handle complex type	Long compile times Hard learning curve
SQLx	Strongly typed	Raw SQL

Database: MariaDB

Justification:

• Relational Structure: Supports complex queries and ensures data consistency, ideal for user workflows and triggers.

• Performance: Optimized for high transaction rates with multi-threading and memory improvements.

• Compatibility: Drop-in replacement for MySQL with a large community and ecosystem.

Comparisons:

Database	MariaDB	MongoDB	PostgreSQL
Schema	Relational (Strict Schema)	NoSQL (Schema-free)	Relational (Flexible)
Scalability	High	High	Slightly less than mariadb
Querying	SQL	JSON/BSON	Advanced SQL

• MongoDB: Better for schema-less, document-based storage but less suited for relational data.

• PostgreSQL: Advanced features but overkill for simple relational use cases.

Conclusion: MariaDB balances simplicity, performance, and compatibility, fitting the automation app’s needs.

Overall Synergy

The selected tech stack optimizes for:

• Performance: Go and Flutter ensure fast server and mobile app execution.

• Scalability: Go and MariaDB handle high concurrency and transaction rates.

• Developer Experience: React, Vite, and TypeScript streamline web development.

• Cross-Platform Reach: Flutter enables rapid multi-platform deployment.

This stack effectively balances development speed, scalability, and maintainability while outperforming alternatives for this automation-focused app.