7 ms·

Not a single post on Hacker News can use the term "serverless" without the exact same replies being posted every time. It's as if a certain portion of the HN cr

Not a single post on Hacker News can use the term "serverless" without the exact same replies being posted every time. It's as if a certain portion of the HN crowd simply cannot fathom that a new term exists and is in use, and instead resort to the same, tired responses.

bloopernova 7y ago
I think some folks are afraid of losing their jobs, so they lash out with snark.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Someone else said on HN, developers don’t just move to the cloud to avoid administering servers, we also want to avoid server administrators.
  - xmly 7y ago
    hahaha good point
rumanator 7y ago
> Not a single post on Hacker News can use the term "serverless" wits nhout the exact same replies being posted every time. As a serverless skeptic/critic, the buzzword bingo aspect of serverless computing is far from being the problem, and it's a gross missrepresentation of the problems posed by serverless computing. The main problem with server applications such as AWS lambda, along with lack of control, is how utterly expensive it becomes by enforcing a SaaS business model to simple function calls, and how convoluted and needlessly complex it becomes by having to resort to yet another premium service to simply manage workflows (see AWS step functions). Suggesting that any criticism of the serverless fad is just old grumpy incompetent developers that are too dumb to understand the future and are to scared of being out of a job is a disingenuous attack on anyone who has the audacity of not falling behind a fad.
- scarface74 7y ago
  As if the time to manage servers is free. But lambda is far from expensive. If you’re spending even $100 a month on lambda, you probably have a successful business. And everything is “complex” if you don’t know how to do it optimally.
  - rumanator 7y ago
    > As if the time to manage servers is free. I work in projects which make heavy use of function-as-a-service, and I have first-hand accounts of how FaaS offerings have lead developers to waste a couple of weeks getting FaaS to do what could have been done in a couple of hours with a tried-and-true web service. > But lambda is far from expensive. Relatively to the cost of a VM instance? Yes, it's expensive. We're in a day and age where a vCPU with 2GB of RAM can be had for 3€/month, and the pricing examples posted on AWS Lambda's page show a scenario where slightly over a month of function run time requiring 512MB of RAM would cost around $18. In addition, AWS lambda usage is rounded up in intervals of 0.1s and 128MB, thus inexpensive function calls are way overcharged. > If you’re spending even $100 a month on lambda, you probably have a successful business. This assertion is missing the fact that those $100 a month on lambdas might be handled by $10 worth of computational resources in the cloud and a software architecture that isn't convoluted or tied to a single vendor. Thus the fact is that a fad is being pushed without technical merit or sound operational reasoning.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Let me give you another example. We have a Jenkins server for builds. Most of the time, you push code and the build starts immediately. However, at times we have 10 builds in the queue and you’re sitting there waiting for your small build behind larger builds. On the other hand, we’ve started moving to CodeBuild “Serverless builds”. When we aren’t running builds, we aren’t paying for it. However when crunch time comes, we can run up to 50 builds simultaneously (you can request a larger limit). How much would it cost to have build servers that could handle peak demand and how much of a waste would it be to have that server sitting idle? And if you’re worried about the difference in cost between $100 and $10, you’re not running a business. Will that $10 a month server scale up with demand? As far as it taking “two or three weeks” - “its a poor craftsmen who blames his tools”. Don’t blame AWS for the missing skillset of your developers. There is no reason that it should take your developers any longer to build an API with lambda instead of a server. In fact, you can host the same APIs with lambda by only adding two or three lines of code and using proxy integration. For instance in Node: https://github.com/awslabs/aws-serverless-express https://github.com/awslabs/aws-serverless-express
tuldia 7y ago
Seems that you edit your comment quite a bit, eh? --- > Not a single post on Hacker News can use the term "serverless" without the exact same replies being posted every time. Indeed. > It's as if a certain portion of the HN crowd simply cannot fathom that a new term exists and is in use, and instead resort to the same, tired responses. If was only "a certain portion/crowd" it will have no responses at all. I see more like: "It's as if a certain portion of the HN crowd simply cannot fathom that servers exists and is easy to use, and instead resort to the same, tired responses."
- cddotdotslash 7y ago
  First, no, I haven't edited the post. Second, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, you may need... to edit your post and try again.

bloopernova 7y ago

I think some folks are afraid of losing their jobs, so they lash out with snark.

scarface74 7y ago
Someone else said on HN, developers don’t just move to the cloud to avoid administering servers, we also want to avoid server administrators.
- xmly 7y ago
  hahaha good point

rumanator 7y ago

> Not a single post on Hacker News can use the term "serverless" wits nhout the exact same replies being posted every time. As a serverless skeptic/critic, the buzzword bingo aspect of serverless computing is far from being the problem, and it's a gross missrepresentation of the problems posed by serverless computing. The main problem with server applications such as AWS lambda, along with lack of control, is how utterly expensive it becomes by enforcing a SaaS business model to simple function calls, and how convoluted and needlessly complex it becomes by having to resort to yet another premium service to simply manage workflows (see AWS step functions). Suggesting that any criticism of the serverless fad is just old grumpy incompetent developers that are too dumb to understand the future and are to scared of being out of a job is a disingenuous attack on anyone who has the audacity of not falling behind a fad.

scarface74 7y ago
As if the time to manage servers is free. But lambda is far from expensive. If you’re spending even $100 a month on lambda, you probably have a successful business. And everything is “complex” if you don’t know how to do it optimally.
- rumanator 7y ago
  > As if the time to manage servers is free. I work in projects which make heavy use of function-as-a-service, and I have first-hand accounts of how FaaS offerings have lead developers to waste a couple of weeks getting FaaS to do what could have been done in a couple of hours with a tried-and-true web service. > But lambda is far from expensive. Relatively to the cost of a VM instance? Yes, it's expensive. We're in a day and age where a vCPU with 2GB of RAM can be had for 3€/month, and the pricing examples posted on AWS Lambda's page show a scenario where slightly over a month of function run time requiring 512MB of RAM would cost around $18. In addition, AWS lambda usage is rounded up in intervals of 0.1s and 128MB, thus inexpensive function calls are way overcharged. > If you’re spending even $100 a month on lambda, you probably have a successful business. This assertion is missing the fact that those $100 a month on lambdas might be handled by $10 worth of computational resources in the cloud and a software architecture that isn't convoluted or tied to a single vendor. Thus the fact is that a fad is being pushed without technical merit or sound operational reasoning.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Let me give you another example. We have a Jenkins server for builds. Most of the time, you push code and the build starts immediately. However, at times we have 10 builds in the queue and you’re sitting there waiting for your small build behind larger builds. On the other hand, we’ve started moving to CodeBuild “Serverless builds”. When we aren’t running builds, we aren’t paying for it. However when crunch time comes, we can run up to 50 builds simultaneously (you can request a larger limit). How much would it cost to have build servers that could handle peak demand and how much of a waste would it be to have that server sitting idle? And if you’re worried about the difference in cost between $100 and $10, you’re not running a business. Will that $10 a month server scale up with demand? As far as it taking “two or three weeks” - “its a poor craftsmen who blames his tools”. Don’t blame AWS for the missing skillset of your developers. There is no reason that it should take your developers any longer to build an API with lambda instead of a server. In fact, you can host the same APIs with lambda by only adding two or three lines of code and using proxy integration. For instance in Node: https://github.com/awslabs/aws-serverless-express https://github.com/awslabs/aws-serverless-express

tuldia 7y ago

Seems that you edit your comment quite a bit, eh? --- > Not a single post on Hacker News can use the term "serverless" without the exact same replies being posted every time. Indeed. > It's as if a certain portion of the HN crowd simply cannot fathom that a new term exists and is in use, and instead resort to the same, tired responses. If was only "a certain portion/crowd" it will have no responses at all. I see more like: "It's as if a certain portion of the HN crowd simply cannot fathom that servers exists and is easy to use, and instead resort to the same, tired responses."

cddotdotslash 7y ago
First, no, I haven't edited the post. Second, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, you may need... to edit your post and try again.