6 ms·

The "serverless" architecture is cool, but it irks me every time I hear the given name for it. For a marketing term mainly aimed at developers, I'm amazed they

by _bxg1 8y ago

The "serverless" architecture is cool, but it irks me every time I hear the given name for it. For a marketing term mainly aimed at developers, I'm amazed they picked one so terrible.

humbleMouse 8y ago
Agreed, it doesn't make much sense hearing "serverless". Like, is data being served to a client or not? I haven't done much reading up on it but it basically sounds like someone else is hosting and executing your code?
- _bxg1 8y ago
  To my understanding, it mean you write endpoints and only endpoints. You don't have to configure an OS, or even write the code that says "bind to port X and start". You just say "when you get this request, do this". Which is a neat abstraction! But there's still a server, you just don't have to manage it directly.
  - humbleMouse 8y ago
    That makes perfect sense. Calling it "serverless" is kind of weird though. I can see the point from a marketing perspective but "serverless" is just such a weird term.
JanisL 8y ago
You definitely aren't the only one bothered by the name.
gaius 8y ago
For a marketing term mainly aimed at developers, I'm amazed they picked one so terrible. The message is "you don't need sysadmins anymore", which is exactly what developers want to hear. It's also very good for the cloud vendors, because with noone in the sysadmin role, developers are far more likely address scaling issues by just throwing resources (money) at the problem.
- XorNot 8y ago
  Which is funny because my next job i start soon is exactly "sysadmin for serverless".
  - gaius 8y ago
    Indeed. You still need someone whose job it is to ensure your S3 buckets are secure and whatnot. The job is different day to day but the need for someone to take responsibility for it hasn’t changed.
jsty 8y ago
It's a bit like driverless. Hopefully something or someone is driving the car, but how that driving comes to be isn't really your concern.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> For a marketing term mainly aimed at developers I think the marketing is aimed mainly at technology management, not developers. Obviously, they have to evangelize developers, too, to a certain extent because they need a critical mass with familiarity so that the managers aren't saying “that’s nice, but who do we hire to build stuff on it”, but developers aren't the ultimate target of the marketing for serverless or most other cloud technologies.
CodeM0nkey 8y ago
I've heard the analagy used that "Servers are to Serverless what wires are to wireless", the main point being that they're still there, but they're no longer something you manage or directly interact with. I'm also starting to see the term LaaS (Logic as a Service) used as an alternative to "Serverless" here and there.
- _bxg1 8y ago
  I think the analogy falls apart because in the part of the system that's referred to as "wireless", there is literally no wire. The serverless comparison would be more like if they used a lot of zip ties and some well-placed rugs so you never saw the wires going directly to you computer and called that "wireless". LaaS sounds much more accurate/palatable.
  - anothergoogler 8y ago
    Not just that, but "serverless" typically involves integrating a muddle of AWS/GCP/Azure services, locking you in. Portable software is the analog to "wireless" here, as it gives you the freedom to... move.

by _bxg1 8y ago

The "serverless" architecture is cool, but it irks me every time I hear the given name for it. For a marketing term mainly aimed at developers, I'm amazed they picked one so terrible.

humbleMouse 8y ago

Agreed, it doesn't make much sense hearing "serverless". Like, is data being served to a client or not? I haven't done much reading up on it but it basically sounds like someone else is hosting and executing your code?

_bxg1 8y ago
To my understanding, it mean you write endpoints and only endpoints. You don't have to configure an OS, or even write the code that says "bind to port X and start". You just say "when you get this request, do this". Which is a neat abstraction! But there's still a server, you just don't have to manage it directly.
- humbleMouse 8y ago
  That makes perfect sense. Calling it "serverless" is kind of weird though. I can see the point from a marketing perspective but "serverless" is just such a weird term.

JanisL 8y ago

You definitely aren't the only one bothered by the name.

gaius 8y ago

For a marketing term mainly aimed at developers, I'm amazed they picked one so terrible. The message is "you don't need sysadmins anymore", which is exactly what developers want to hear. It's also very good for the cloud vendors, because with noone in the sysadmin role, developers are far more likely address scaling issues by just throwing resources (money) at the problem.

XorNot 8y ago
Which is funny because my next job i start soon is exactly "sysadmin for serverless".
- gaius 8y ago
  Indeed. You still need someone whose job it is to ensure your S3 buckets are secure and whatnot. The job is different day to day but the need for someone to take responsibility for it hasn’t changed.

jsty 8y ago

It's a bit like driverless. Hopefully something or someone is driving the car, but how that driving comes to be isn't really your concern.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> For a marketing term mainly aimed at developers I think the marketing is aimed mainly at technology management, not developers. Obviously, they have to evangelize developers, too, to a certain extent because they need a critical mass with familiarity so that the managers aren't saying “that’s nice, but who do we hire to build stuff on it”, but developers aren't the ultimate target of the marketing for serverless or most other cloud technologies.

CodeM0nkey 8y ago

I've heard the analagy used that "Servers are to Serverless what wires are to wireless", the main point being that they're still there, but they're no longer something you manage or directly interact with. I'm also starting to see the term LaaS (Logic as a Service) used as an alternative to "Serverless" here and there.

_bxg1 8y ago
I think the analogy falls apart because in the part of the system that's referred to as "wireless", there is literally no wire. The serverless comparison would be more like if they used a lot of zip ties and some well-placed rugs so you never saw the wires going directly to you computer and called that "wireless". LaaS sounds much more accurate/palatable.
- anothergoogler 8y ago
  Not just that, but "serverless" typically involves integrating a muddle of AWS/GCP/Azure services, locking you in. Portable software is the analog to "wireless" here, as it gives you the freedom to... move.