> if serverless works for 80%, then why is that 80% not even remotely reflected in the sentiment here? HN is usually a pretty good gauge for how the wider engin

> if serverless works for 80%, then why is that 80% not even remotely reflected in the sentiment here? HN is usually a pretty good gauge for how the wider engineering community feels about a particular technology. Every time something sympathetic to a "hyped" technology is posted it's largely derided for being the "popular, hyped" option. MongoDB absolutely ruined the idea of NoSQL for years because everyone just meme'd about "webscale", without being willing to consider that maybe there's merit to the technology. Are you seriously doubting that lots of people are moving towards serverless infrastructure? Even internally at big companies they use "serverless-like" models eg: * Lots of big companies have an internal FaaS * Those FaaS are owned and managed by other internal teams, and are treated in much the same way as how you'd treat a 3rd party offering. Serverless just outsources what those companies are doing already. I leverage AWS lambdas almost exclusively. Yes I am paying a higher price for worse latency. That's OK. I'll pay money for that, if what I get in return is a managed hardware, os, and runtime environment - problems that generate billions of dollars in revenue for many different companies that are working on making it easier. Performance is a problem I wish to address aggressively, but it's 3rd on the list. A rough approximation of my priorities might be: 1. Security 2. Complexity (including operational complexity) 3. Performance Serverless gives me the tools to manage (1) and (2) in a way that has worked extremely well for me personally, and I have not found latency to be a problem for me. Sadly, the site is down so I can not view the article and comment on things more concretely, however I saw the 8x figure and that's fine. 8x latency is fine for many workloads, but operational overhead isn't fine for mine. edit: OK, so they just don't support HTTPS. It loads now. 8x cost, 15% performance. Cool. Cool numbers and article, I appreciate what they're getting at. I don't see how you can walk away with "Serverless is all hype and never an option" from it, but whatever. I will once more point to the "Any time this comes up people bash it because 'hype bad'". The top voted comment currently is someone bashing serverless and contains literally no substance. > Finally, I'm not trying to bash API Gateway, Lambda or serverless in general here, just showing that for some workloads they are a lot more expensive than boring old EC2 and Elastic Beanstalk Really makes sense to me! Pick the right technology for your constraints. If serverless offerings like lambda could solve every use case AWS wouldn't need other services.