11–20 of 28 posts
"Ride the serverless wave by creating and maintaining a server"
Just feels like every discussion about this technology is hijacked by the stupid nameto the point it’s all some can focus on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Serverless" is one of the worst misnomers I've ever seen.
"Serverless" is just "server as a service". Horrible misnomer indeed.
"Ride the serverless wave by creating and maintaining a server"
Ok, we get it, “serverless” doesn’t mean “without a server.” its a misnomer. Can we all accept this now and talk about it underneath the semantics or does someone have the power to change it industry-wide? Just feels like every discussion about this technology is hijacked by the stupid nameto the point it’s all some can focus on.
Will we ever get to the point where we can talk about "serverless" (FaaS) without half the comments being about the term?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Serverless" is just "server as a service". Horrible misnomer indeed.
My naive take is that serverless is just a movement back to the simplicity of ftp + cgi / php. It all looks very similar, just with a different pricing model, and a different implementation cloud computing vs shared hosting.
Will we ever get to the point where we can talk about "serverless" (FaaS) without half the comments being about the term?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a funny thing, but still, having a "Function as a Service" is a nice tool to have, regardless of how truly "serverless" it is. Lambda, et al offer the convenience of not having to run your own server, but a FaaS is a great concept regardless of whether you're hosting it yourself or using a cloud provider's version.
I don't see how. I thought the whole use case for FaaS is that you're only paying for the literally milliseconds of compute time you use, and nothing more. But if you're already paying for the server, what's the point? I suppose you could host a lot more low-volume apps on one server?
I have a small droplet on digital ocean I use to host a few small personal projects. $5/month is pretty reasonable and if I don't want to sign up for AWS, this is a fairly beneficial thing to know about.
For people who want to use serverless functionality for cost benefit, it's probably not as helpful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My naive take is that serverless is just a movement back to the simplicity of ftp + cgi / php. It all looks very similar, just with a different pricing model, and a different implementation cloud computing vs shared hosting.
In what ways do they look similar?
Of course, Serverless also offers elastic scaling and non-HTTP triggers, so that's a point of difference.
For all the talk of elastic scaling, I suspect that a lot of people are enjoying the idea of Serverless at the moment simply because it harks back to an earlier, pre-framework, pre-workflow approach to web development.