4 ms·
Everyone know that “serverless” anything doesn’t run on a server, be it AWS or Azure instances or what have you. That would be both ironic and silly, like someo
by mikestew 7y ago
Everyone know that “serverless” anything doesn’t run on a server, be it AWS or Azure instances or what have you. That would be both ironic and silly, like someone used the wrong word or something.
Serverless databases and what have you have been around longer than the current batch of folks trying to redefine things (or more charitably, ran out names to call things). Like or not, there is a distinction even if the old definition was before your time.
- cle 7y agoNobody called them serverless DBs, and nobody does. There is a vocal minority of reductionists here on HN who dismiss the accepted definition of serverless because the literal meaning doesn’t make sense. It’s just noise though. “Serverless” does have a specific meaning and it’s not “there are no servers anywhere”. I was around when there was no serverless. Things change, new words arise. Time for us to get with the times.
- quasarj 7y agonah
- tonyarkles 7y ago> I was around when there was no serverless. We used to call it /cgi-bin/ ;)
- int_19h 7y agoI remember Firebird called "serverless" sometime around 2006, in the same meaning that SQLite uses. It was pretty common terminology for RDBMS.