4 ms·

Serverless databases are a thing. Serverless is not confusing. It's only confusing if you try to be pedantic with remarks like "duh, it has to run on a server

Serverless databases are a thing. Serverless is not confusing. It's only confusing if you try to be pedantic with remarks like "duh, it has to run on a server some where." Which really means wireless networking doesn't exist, because there are still wires involved somewhere, and I don't hear people being pedantic about that.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
devwastaken 8y ago
Wireless networking is wireless because communication between device and AP is wireless. Serverless has no point where there isn't a server involved. It's just a service that runs your program on a server you don't control. No definition of 'serverless' fits into that.
millstone 8y ago
If you think "serverless" is not confusing, then you have lost the vocabulary to even describe apps that run truly without servers: Photoshop, Word, tons of games, etc. By your "wireless" analogy I think you view these apps to be absurd impossibilities, like electronics without wires. This distinction is important. SimCity 5 gratuitously required the user to be constantly online, talking to some server. I mean obviously - there has to be a server somewhere, right? No, there does not!! We need to retain the ability to talk about apps that do not need ANY server, and "serverless" muddies that crucial distinction.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Agreed. And even web apps can be truly serverless, like TiddlyWiki.
- staticassertion 8y ago
  Are you seriously incapable of talking about programs that don't require servers because the word serverless exists? Have you considered... offline? Local? I've never heard the word serverless ever used to describe a system that does not require servers.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    > I've never heard the word serverless ever used to describe a system that does not require servers. It was used a few times even on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=serverless&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=custom&type=story&dateStart=1314835200&dateEnd=1408579200 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=serverless&sort=byPopularity&p...
  - manigandham 8y ago
    No, but then why even have that term if it never describes something without servers? "serverless" does not add any value. It causes confusion instead of creating clarity. It is utterly useless.
- jasonlotito 8y ago
  > If you think "serverless" is not confusing, then you have lost the vocabulary to even describe apps that run truly without servers: I generally just call them apps and people understand what I mean because of context. But if you want to get pedantic, Photoshop requires a computer (what a server is). It's all useless and pointless.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

devwastaken 8y ago

Wireless networking is wireless because communication between device and AP is wireless. Serverless has no point where there isn't a server involved. It's just a service that runs your program on a server you don't control. No definition of 'serverless' fits into that.

millstone 8y ago

If you think "serverless" is not confusing, then you have lost the vocabulary to even describe apps that run truly without servers: Photoshop, Word, tons of games, etc. By your "wireless" analogy I think you view these apps to be absurd impossibilities, like electronics without wires. This distinction is important. SimCity 5 gratuitously required the user to be constantly online, talking to some server. I mean obviously - there has to be a server somewhere, right? No, there does not!! We need to retain the ability to talk about apps that do not need ANY server, and "serverless" muddies that crucial distinction.

icebraining 8y ago
Agreed. And even web apps can be truly serverless, like TiddlyWiki.
staticassertion 8y ago
Are you seriously incapable of talking about programs that don't require servers because the word serverless exists? Have you considered... offline? Local? I've never heard the word serverless ever used to describe a system that does not require servers.
- icebraining 8y ago
  > I've never heard the word serverless ever used to describe a system that does not require servers. It was used a few times even on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=serverless&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=custom&type=story&dateStart=1314835200&dateEnd=1408579200 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=serverless&sort=byPopularity&p...
- manigandham 8y ago
  No, but then why even have that term if it never describes something without servers? "serverless" does not add any value. It causes confusion instead of creating clarity. It is utterly useless.
jasonlotito 8y ago
> If you think "serverless" is not confusing, then you have lost the vocabulary to even describe apps that run truly without servers: I generally just call them apps and people understand what I mean because of context. But if you want to get pedantic, Photoshop requires a computer (what a server is). It's all useless and pointless.