I don’t think Oban is more expensive. Oban pro doesn’t charge on the amount of jobs you execute, Temporal does.
You don’t own the infrastructure where Temporal execute, that’s why included in their pricing is storage.
Oban you pay to have access to the code, it gonna run on your own infrastructure, and it can run as many jobs as you want, the price won’t change. I’ve worked in places where what we run daily on oban would consume all the jobs available on temporal basic plan(the only one that is “cheaper” than oban)
So, to reproduce exactly what temporal does you would need more than just Oban or Oban Pro, but there is a big trade-off being done there. Temporal abstraction “encapsulate” and save state of the world to execute, but if that state becomes stale it can byte you, Oban Workflows from Pro is not as powerfull as Temporal but with a good experience on how to properly build the job to give you the guarantees that you need to a paritcular use case you wont need something as powerfull as Temporal.
Temporal is very appealing to runtimes that doesn’t have the safety, resiliency and isolation that the beam does. temporal deal with more then that, but the biggest appeal is exactly what we already get with using the beam itself, the extra stuff is only additional and can be engineered depending on your real needs.
