4 ms·

I think he means having the servers abstracted away (i.e. not having to maintain them, not knowing how many of them should be running, etc...)

aikah 11y ago
People need to stop calling that "server-less", that's stupid and the kind of buzzword that needs to die ASAP. There is a server, the fact that you don't have to manage it yourself doesn't change anything, you still need to upload your code to AWS lambda, how is it different from uploading a PHP script via FTP to a remote machine? it is not. PHP developers don't call their work "server-less". So people need to give up on using this expression now. That's the most ridicule thing I have ever heard in my developer career. Who can anybody take a developer that says he is doing "server-less" web development seriously? frankly? What's next? the "database-less" movement?
- grumblestumble 11y ago
  If you consider a database something that is ACID-compliant, that move happened about a decade ago ;p
- baddox 11y ago
  On the contrary, I think the term is succinct and meaningful despite not being technically true. Of course Lambdas run on servers, but there is a very meaningful distinction between Lambdas and traditional servers (whether virtual or dedicated).
- crcastle 11y ago
  I agree server-less is not technically accurate. That's why I put it in quotes. However, in the spectrum of bare metal server <-> VM server <-> Heroku-like PaaS I'd put this architecture to the right of Heroku. I have less to worry about from an Ops perspective than I do running the app on Heroku. On Heroku, I would need to think about and managing one or several processes. With AWS Lambda, there is no concept of a processes exposed to me like Procfiles expose on Heroku. That's nice in many ways but also limiting in many ways. Also, note that I wasn't building this for rock hard and huge scalability production. I was building it to learn and hopefully help others learn about a fairly new way to build a web application.
  - tomcam 11y ago
    Thanks. Wasn't trying to be argumentative, just wanted clarity.

aikah 11y ago

People need to stop calling that "server-less", that's stupid and the kind of buzzword that needs to die ASAP. There is a server, the fact that you don't have to manage it yourself doesn't change anything, you still need to upload your code to AWS lambda, how is it different from uploading a PHP script via FTP to a remote machine? it is not. PHP developers don't call their work "server-less". So people need to give up on using this expression now. That's the most ridicule thing I have ever heard in my developer career. Who can anybody take a developer that says he is doing "server-less" web development seriously? frankly? What's next? the "database-less" movement?

grumblestumble 11y ago
If you consider a database something that is ACID-compliant, that move happened about a decade ago ;p
baddox 11y ago
On the contrary, I think the term is succinct and meaningful despite not being technically true. Of course Lambdas run on servers, but there is a very meaningful distinction between Lambdas and traditional servers (whether virtual or dedicated).
crcastle 11y ago
I agree server-less is not technically accurate. That's why I put it in quotes. However, in the spectrum of bare metal server <-> VM server <-> Heroku-like PaaS I'd put this architecture to the right of Heroku. I have less to worry about from an Ops perspective than I do running the app on Heroku. On Heroku, I would need to think about and managing one or several processes. With AWS Lambda, there is no concept of a processes exposed to me like Procfiles expose on Heroku. That's nice in many ways but also limiting in many ways. Also, note that I wasn't building this for rock hard and huge scalability production. I was building it to learn and hopefully help others learn about a fairly new way to build a web application.
- tomcam 11y ago
  Thanks. Wasn't trying to be argumentative, just wanted clarity.