4 ms·
I disagree; I find it very helpful. It's not terribly complicated either - if you are only concerned with code, then your deployment is 'serverless' in the sen
by zwischenzug 9y ago
I disagree; I find it very helpful.
It's not terribly complicated either - if you are only concerned with code, then your deployment is 'serverless' in the sense that _you are not concerned with servers_.
Of course 'servers' are involved; the point is whether that's of concern to your deployment.
- frou_dh 9y agoDaemon processes (100% software) also get called "servers". In an old job, in an effort to disambiguate, I would always use "computer" to mean hardware (losing battle).
- icebraining 9y agoI'm not sure that distinction is clear. For example, in AWS Lambda, you still have issues like functions being "warm" or not, and people write code specifically to handle that. Meanwhile, nowadays you can acquire and configure even dedicated machines using just code.
- joseph 9y agoIf you have to configure a machine, even in code, then you aren't "serverless". To me, serverless means that you do not manage the machines or even have direct access to them.
- icebraining 9y agoWhat's a machine? :) A dedicated server sure is, but a VPS? An Heroku Dyno? What's the line?
- monkmartinez 9y ago> What's a machine? I would say "machine" means the hardware and/or the operating system of the "server" (which is a fancy word for "computer"). The "and/or" part being very important!
- zwischenzug 9y agoFair points. I'd say it's as clear as 'middleware'. When you are trying to get to the limits of performance (or just optimizing), then you tend to start thinking about the platform it runs on. This is the problem with most abstractions in IT I guess - they're beautiful and clean until reality bites.
- lucaspiller 9y agoWouldn't that definition apply to services like Heroku as well though?
- zwischenzug 9y agoFor sure.