3 ms·

I'm reading here a lot of people jumping through some massive amounts of hoops to deal with a system that lock you down to a single vendor, and makes it hard to

I'm reading here a lot of people jumping through some massive amounts of hoops to deal with a system that lock you down to a single vendor, and makes it hard to read logs or even read your own bill. a few years back, the mantra was "hardware is cheap, developer time isn't". when did this prevailing wisdom change? Why would people spend hours/days/weeks wrestling with a system to save money which may take weeks, months or even years to see an ROI?

okaramian 9y ago
I think it's very dependent on the task. I do agree with you, building a large/high load system on lambda is bad for the reasons you're suggesting. I think a lot of the hoop jumping is due to experimentation (you won't know how much of a pain in the ass a piece of technology is until you need to deal with it). We've mostly used it for small tasks that will get run once a day. It's been fantastic for that, as putting up a box to handle a sparsely (one or a couple of times a day) run task is a lot of work and is expensive.
jdc0589 9y ago
> hardware is cheap yes, 95% of the time this is accurate. Hardware is only a small part of what you are paying for though. You are also paying for: the actual lambda platform and completely transparent hardware support + replacement, security patching, feature updates, reliability guarantees, etc... If anything that supports your statement. Time and people are expensive.