3 ms·
Isn't this an anti-pattern? I mean, Lambda is suppose to eliminate the need for servers and server admin work. However, working with their services, like Lambda
by cdnsteve 10y ago
Isn't this an anti-pattern? I mean, Lambda is suppose to eliminate the need for servers and server admin work. However, working with their services, like Lambda, are so tedious that solutions like Apex and Serverless have to be put on top of them. So now you have to learn to use a "Serverless Framework" to abstract the complexity of a serverless service?
In my view, they got it wrong. If the service is too cumbersome to use and requires these extra frameworks to actually use them effectively, then there's a fundamental problem with the service it relies on.
- felixgallo 10y agoyou need to consider the alternative. I've been running unix boxes for 30 years, and even though it's node.js-based, even though it's amazon's usual byzantine nonsense, even I think Lambda is a total game changer in the making.
- beat 10y agoNot just from a deployment standpoint, but from a development standpoint! Lambda enforces boundaries and clarity, and strongly encourages simplicity. So, so much better than monolithic app servers.
- southpolesteve 10y agoFor the case of Apex, I think "deployment tool" is better than framework. There isn't really any magic here. At least nothing you couldn't do yourself in the AWS console or UI. It would just suck for more than a few functions. This is automating all the clicking you would have to do otherwise and giving you a sane way to manage functions that can be grouped together.
- cbsmith 10y agoThe "tedium" that Apex & Serverless manage for you are a subset of the "tedium" that you need to manage when you are using servers. You can't get rid of that, but you can avoid all the other stuff involved with managing servers.