4 ms·

That just circle jerk. There is an agreed upon def of serverless. If we reduce things to the absurd we stop being able to reason about things. https://en.m.wi

by idclip 7y ago

That just circle jerk. There is an agreed upon def of serverless. If we reduce things to the absurd we stop being able to reason about things. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serverless_computing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serverless_computing

finnthehuman 7y ago
>There is an agreed upon def of serverless. Sorta but not really. The fact people have worked backwards from marketing names to try and constructively define inherently self-contradictory branding (rather than create a descriptive category into which we place questionable names and ignore them) is an embarrassment for everyone except the marketing departments.
- aikah 7y ago
  It's called a buzzword, nothing more nothing less, it's like "cloud computing", eventually it becomes meaningless.
  - idclip 7y ago
    We now have kubernetes tho, and openshift. And i actually believe in docker swarms and compose battalions. Ill give u that its hard to discern when a thing is a real change and when it isnt, as the titans of industry try to peacock around. Id just examine what they actually mean, for good measure. Theyre trying to sell things they have no idea about - but thats why the hierarchy of commerce is.
- idclip 7y ago
  I honestly too dislike all this naming fad and feel the internet’s been taken over by the management and marketting folk .. but still, i try not to hyperbole about it - too bad, but its sorta ok, and it ultimately irrelevant for the job, dbConnection is simply remote.
filleduchaos 7y ago
That is not the definition of serverless in question.
- idclip 7y ago
  If you examine it closely, youll see that they have alot incommon, and that the author defined the term neo-serverless to attempt to adress this - both definitions share the fact that multiple applications (in clientless form) can access the database. He even gives amazon S3 as an example. For neo serverless. I agree with you that it take a bit to marry both, but the stretch isnt far. Im also avoiding criticising the Author for not sticking to the main def, since id then be red-herringing the post.
  - filleduchaos 7y ago
    > both definitions share the fact that multiple applications (in clientless form) can access the database That is like the least relevant thing on that entire page, to be frank. "SQLite is Serverless" is specifically referring to SQLite being an embeddable library that runs in the same process (and same thread, even) as your application vs. the client-server architecture (database in another process, with communication via a port) that DBMSes like MySQL and co have. > Im also avoiding criticising the Author for not sticking to the main def The "main definition" (i.e. the web dev buzzword) came into being years after this post was written.
    - idclip 7y ago
      You are right
nickthemagicman 7y ago
Thank you for saying this. People seem to argue semantics to appear clever and it really pollutes communication and reasoning.

by idclip 7y ago

finnthehuman 7y ago

>There is an agreed upon def of serverless. Sorta but not really. The fact people have worked backwards from marketing names to try and constructively define inherently self-contradictory branding (rather than create a descriptive category into which we place questionable names and ignore them) is an embarrassment for everyone except the marketing departments.

aikah 7y ago
It's called a buzzword, nothing more nothing less, it's like "cloud computing", eventually it becomes meaningless.
- idclip 7y ago
  We now have kubernetes tho, and openshift. And i actually believe in docker swarms and compose battalions. Ill give u that its hard to discern when a thing is a real change and when it isnt, as the titans of industry try to peacock around. Id just examine what they actually mean, for good measure. Theyre trying to sell things they have no idea about - but thats why the hierarchy of commerce is.
idclip 7y ago
I honestly too dislike all this naming fad and feel the internet’s been taken over by the management and marketting folk .. but still, i try not to hyperbole about it - too bad, but its sorta ok, and it ultimately irrelevant for the job, dbConnection is simply remote.

filleduchaos 7y ago

That is not the definition of serverless in question.

idclip 7y ago
If you examine it closely, youll see that they have alot incommon, and that the author defined the term neo-serverless to attempt to adress this - both definitions share the fact that multiple applications (in clientless form) can access the database. He even gives amazon S3 as an example. For neo serverless. I agree with you that it take a bit to marry both, but the stretch isnt far. Im also avoiding criticising the Author for not sticking to the main def, since id then be red-herringing the post.
- filleduchaos 7y ago
  > both definitions share the fact that multiple applications (in clientless form) can access the database That is like the least relevant thing on that entire page, to be frank. "SQLite is Serverless" is specifically referring to SQLite being an embeddable library that runs in the same process (and same thread, even) as your application vs. the client-server architecture (database in another process, with communication via a port) that DBMSes like MySQL and co have. > Im also avoiding criticising the Author for not sticking to the main def The "main definition" (i.e. the web dev buzzword) came into being years after this post was written.
  - idclip 7y ago
    You are right

nickthemagicman 7y ago

Thank you for saying this. People seem to argue semantics to appear clever and it really pollutes communication and reasoning.