4 ms·

This is overly reductive. “Serverless” might be overhyped, but amongst devs and ops it is a perfectly good way to succinctly describe a very specific architectu

by jtms 7y ago

This is overly reductive. “Serverless” might be overhyped, but amongst devs and ops it is a perfectly good way to succinctly describe a very specific architecture with real merit. Paying for exactly the compute time i use is pretty sexy to me when I want to deploy and scale a side project.

giancarlostoro 7y ago
Agreed, I'm not big in devops, but I can see the usefulness of it if you're already part of a cloud provider, but like I said I only know of the capabilities of it in Azure, I'm not familiar with the capabilities elsewhere.
Frost1x 7y ago
What was wrong with "managed"? It's pretty generic and transfers across many domains and also, more fairly descriptive of what's going on.
- jtms 7y ago
  "managed" is an AWS instance or a digital ocean droplet. "serverless" is an entirely different thing.
  - Frost1x 7y ago
    "Serverless" is another level of abstraction and management, that's it. Are you proposing that a term collision adds too much confusion? "Managed" hosting has been around for decades as have "managed" services, in general, long before Amazon even existed. EC2 brought a new level/layer of automation and management ontop of what colo datacenters used to do, provide scaling etc. To be clear I'm not saying it's simple but "managed" describes much of it.
    - jtms 7y ago
      I would argue that the architectural implications of using a "run individual functions on a remote pool of computing resources and build your client application around this pattern and only pay for the exact amount of compute time you use" is not sufficiently covered by the term "managed". I think there could have perhaps been a better name than "serverless" chosen, but that's the name enough people have agreed on to use when talking about this specific architecture that it would be difficult to use another one.
tracker1 7y ago
I would say (X)aaS (whatever as a service) is probably a better term... like DBaaS in this case, vs Serverless as in in-process, which is probably a closer and better use of the term.

by jtms 7y ago

giancarlostoro 7y ago

Agreed, I'm not big in devops, but I can see the usefulness of it if you're already part of a cloud provider, but like I said I only know of the capabilities of it in Azure, I'm not familiar with the capabilities elsewhere.

Frost1x 7y ago

What was wrong with "managed"? It's pretty generic and transfers across many domains and also, more fairly descriptive of what's going on.

jtms 7y ago
"managed" is an AWS instance or a digital ocean droplet. "serverless" is an entirely different thing.
- Frost1x 7y ago
  "Serverless" is another level of abstraction and management, that's it. Are you proposing that a term collision adds too much confusion? "Managed" hosting has been around for decades as have "managed" services, in general, long before Amazon even existed. EC2 brought a new level/layer of automation and management ontop of what colo datacenters used to do, provide scaling etc. To be clear I'm not saying it's simple but "managed" describes much of it.
  - jtms 7y ago
    I would argue that the architectural implications of using a "run individual functions on a remote pool of computing resources and build your client application around this pattern and only pay for the exact amount of compute time you use" is not sufficiently covered by the term "managed". I think there could have perhaps been a better name than "serverless" chosen, but that's the name enough people have agreed on to use when talking about this specific architecture that it would be difficult to use another one.

tracker1 7y ago

I would say (X)aaS (whatever as a service) is probably a better term... like DBaaS in this case, vs Serverless as in in-process, which is probably a closer and better use of the term.