4 ms·
The problem with serverless is that it's seems to mean distributed. So why not chose a more fitting name?
by faleidel 10y ago
The problem with serverless is that it's seems to mean distributed.
So why not chose a more fitting name?
- lostcolony 10y agoLike? The point of it is there are no servers to manage. That's the sell, that's the differentiator. Hence the name. But by all means, if you have a better term for it I'd love to hear it.
- lqdc13 10y agoWell thing is you ARE indirectly managing server resources. For example, you have to deal with "autoscaling" or else it can run out of control. Why not say "fully-managed" or "serverside fully-managed"? In serverless, everyone is a "client" and you run things client-side. Things like P2P file sharing in the browser is serverless. Things like AWS lambda obviously have a server.
- spriggan3 10y ago> The point of it is there are no servers to manage If I deploy a PHP script on a shared host there is no server to manage either. My PHP script doesn't listen communications on a socket connection. It doesn't make it "serverless". At some point the stuff you deploy, on a server no matter what you think it is, needs to communicate with the outside world through a server. It is not "serverless".